s^ 


f]^> 


"^^^e/cirstUN^ 


BS  2545  .S5  C6 
Cone,  Orello, 
Rich  and  poor 
Testament 

1902 
1835-1905. 
in  the  New 

Mc. 

RICH    AND    POOR 

IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 


EICH  AND   POOE 

IN   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 


A  STUDY  OF 

THE  PRIMITIVE-CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE 

OF   EARTHLY   POSSESSIONS 


BY /" 

ORELLO    CONE,  D.D. 

AUTHOR    OF    'gospel-criticism   AND   HISTORICAL   CHRISTIANITY, 

'the    gospel    and    ITS    EARLIEST    INTERPRETATIONS,' 

'  PAUL  :    THE   MAN,   THE   MISSIONARY,  AND 

THE   TEACHER,'    ETC. 


NEW   YORK 
THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON  :   ADAM  AND  CHARLES  BLACK 
1902 


ERR  A  TA 

Page  233,  first  col.,  line  6  from  foot,  for  "505"  read  "50,  51." 
Page  234,  second  col.,  line  19  from  foot,  for  "276"  read  "27  f." 
Page  238,  first  col.,  line  16,  delete  "quoted,  157,  173,"  and  insert 

after  Schmiedel  above. 
Page  238,  second  col.,  line  10,  delete  "quoted,   78,  88,  120,"  and 

insert  after  Titius  above. 


PREFACE 

There  is  no  lack  of  treatises  on  the  attitude  of 
Jesus  toward  the  Social  Question,  and  in  these 
there  is  usually  a  chapter  on  his  teaching  regarding 
riches  and  poverty.  There  is,  however,  no  work 
in  English  known  to  the  writer  that  deals  with 
the  teaching  of  the  entire  New  Testament  on  the 
social  question  that  concerns  the  relation  of  Kich 
and  Poor  and  on  Earthly  Possessions  in  general 
in  their  connection  with  the  moral-religious  life. 
The  little  German  monograph  by  Kogge,  Der 
irdische  Bcsitz  im  neuen  Testament,  attempts  to 
cover  this  ground,  and  does  it  in  a  spirit  of  candour 
and  impartiality.  There  is,  however,  a  fault  in  this 
book  that  appears  in  most  of  the  discussions  of 
Jesus'  teaching  on  the  social  question  —  a  mis- 
conception of  Jesus'  point  of  view  and  a  consequent 


vi  PEEFACE 

violence  to  exegesis  done  in  order  to  make  writings 
of  the  first  century  fit  the  conditions  of  the  twentieth 
century. 

It  has  been  the  endeavour  of  the  writer  of  this 
book  to  interpret  the  New  Testament  teachers 
historically  and  grammatically,  and  to  find  what 
there  may  be  in  the  spirit  of  their  teachings  that 
is  applicable  to  modern  social  conditions.  He 
deems  it  no  great  loss  if  in  this  process  the  letter 
of  their  words  is  not  in  all  cases  found  to  be 
available. 

It  is  believed  that  the  chapter  on  "Conditions 

and    Teachings    before   Christ,"   setting    forth    the 

humanity  of  the  Old  Testament,  will  be  found  to 

furnish  an  instructive  introduction  to  the   central 

theme  of  the  book. 

O.  C. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    I 

PAOE 

Conditions     and    Teachings    among    the     Jews 

BEFORE  Christ      ......         1 


CHAPTER    II 

Matthew  and  Luke     ......       48 

CHAPTER    III 

The  Point  of  View  in  the  Gospels    ...       68 

CHAPTER    IV 

The  Teaching  in  Matthew  .         .         .         .92 

CHAPTER    V 

The  Teaching  in  Luke        .         .         .         .         .118 

vii 


viii  CONTENTS 


CHAPTEE    VI 

PAGE 

"All  Things  Common" 143 


CHAPTER   VII 

The  Apostle  Paul       .         .         .         .         .         .159 

CHAPTER   VIII 

The  Later  Epistles  and  other  New  Testament 

Writings 176 

CHAPTER    IX 

The  Transient  and  the  Permanent    .         .         .189 

CHAPTER    X 

The   New   Testament  and   the   Social  Question 

OF  To-day   ■ 209 

Index  op  Subjects  and  Names    ....     233 

Index  of  Biblical  Passages         .         .         .         .241 


RICH  AND  POOR  IN  THE 
NEW  TESTAMENT 

CHAPTEE    I 

CONDITIONS  AND   TEACHINGS  AMONG  THE  JEWS 
BEFORE   CHKIST 

The  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  included  in 
Jewish  literature  as  a  part  in  a  whole.  This  Jewish 
literature  comprises,  so  far  as  we  are  to  consider  it, 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  writings  of 
later  Judaism.  If  Christianity  is  another  Judaism 
— a  Judaism  transfigured  by  new  and  fruitful  ideas 
and  by  a  great  life — it  is  not  independent  in  its 
origin  of  that  which  preceded  it.  It  did  not  spring 
into  existence  as  a  new  creation.  It  was  nurtured 
in  the  womb  of  a  wonderful  nation  until  it  was  time 
for  it  to  be  born.  The  child  bears  the  features  of  its 
mother.     No  wonder,  too,  if  on  its  face  are  birth- 

1 


2  EICH  AND   POOK 

marks  denoting  the  struggles,  griefs,  and  ecstasies 
of  her  eventful  history  !  Whether  we  express  the 
relation  of  the  two  by  the  figure  of  generation 
or  by  the  law  of  evolution,  certain  it  is  that  they 
must  be  studied  together  as  kindred  aspects  of 
religion.  He  who  would  know  this  child  must 
know  its  parent.  The  austere  and  majestic  features 
of  the  one  and  the  softer  grace  and  charm  of  the 
other  are  only  different  expressions  of  a  spirit 
essential  in  both.  Antique  grandeur  transformed 
into  a  gentle  dignity  befitting  a  new  age  and  a  new 
dispensation ! 

Just  as  the  theological  problems  of  ancient  Israel 
and  the  later  Judaism  reappear  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment under  different  lights  and  in  settings  strange 
to  the  former  time,  and  just  as  the  underlying 
religious  ideas  of  the  older  book  constitute  the 
foundation  of  the  primitive-Christian  literature,  so 
the  social  problems  of  the  one  Testament  recur  in 
the  other,  with  altered  features  indeed,  but  with  the 
same  essential  character.  In  both  Testaments  the 
same  spirit  expresses  itself  in  the  attempted  solutions 
of  these  problems.  In  regard  to  the  social  question 
of  worldly  possessions  and  of  the  reciprocal  relations 
of  rich  and  poor,  the  attitude  of  lawgivers  and 
prophets  and  of  the  great  Teacher  and  his  apostles 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS  3 

is  unique.  "Whether  this  quality  should  be  regarded 
as  a  race-characteristic,  or  as  denoting  the  striking 
and  uniform  character  of  a  single  and  unbroken 
course  of  divine  inspiration,  is  a  question  that  need 
not  be  discussed  in  an  historical  inquiry.  The  fact 
of  paramount  interest  and  importance  is  that  the 
dominant  note  throughout,  the  note  of  command- 
ment, admonition,  reproof,  and  teaching  in  legislator, 
prophet,  psalmist,  Jesus,  and  apostle,  is  Humanity. 

It  was  remarked  in  our  first  paragraph  that  the 
two  literatures,  called  Jewish  and  Christian,  should 
be  studied  together  as  presenting  kindred  aspects  of 
religion.  We  may  now  return  to  this  thought  in 
order  to  mention  the  fact  that  in  both  the  religious 
interest  is  predominant.  Life  and  conduct  are 
regarded  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  divine 
approval  or  disapproval,  of  obedience  to,  or  violation 
of,  the  law  of  God.  Ethics  pure  and  simple  does 
not  constitute  the  leading  motive  of  the  teachers 
and  writers  of  either  Testament.  Their  interest  is 
unmistakably  in  ethics  under  the  sanction  of  religion. 
An  illustration  of  this  fact  that  belongs  to  our 
subject  is  found  in  the  absence  throughout  the  Old 
Testament  of  a  discussion  or  consideration  of  the 
social  question  of  riches  and  poverty  from  a  social 
point  of  view.    On  the  contrary,  it  is  quite  uniformly 


4  EICH  AND  POOK 

presented  under  a  religious  aspect.  It  is  Yahweh 
who  is  the  protector  of  the  poor  and  their  avenger, 
and  whosoever  wrongs  them  will  incur  His  judg- 
ments. "  The  needy  shall  not  always  be  forgotten," 
exclaims  a  psalmist :  "  the  expectation  of  the  poor 
shall  not  perish  for  ever."^  He  that  "considereth 
the  poor"  has  the  promise  of  the  divine  blessing, 
and  "  the  Lord  will  deliver  him  in  the  time  of 
V  trouble."^  A  prophet  declares  the  judgment  of 
Yahweh  on  those  who  "take  away  the  right  from 
the  poor  of  the  people,"  who  prey  upon  widows,  and 
rob  the  fatherless.^  The  extreme  divine  penalty  is 
pronounced  upon  the  man  who  has  oppressed  the 
poor,  spoiled  by  violence,  and  has  not  restored  the 
pledge  taken  for  debt,  who  has  "given  forth  upon 
usury,  and  taken  increase.  He  that  hath  done 
all  these  abominations  shall  surely  die."  * 

In  accordance  with  this  general  ethical-religious 
point  of  view,  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile  co- 
ordinates a  kindly  regard  for  the  poor  and  oppressed 
with  the  highest  duties  enjoined  and  sanctioned  by 
religion.  The  true  fast  chosen  by  Yahweh  is  to 
loose  the  bonds  of  wickedness,  to  undo  the  heavy 
burdens,  to  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  to  deal  bread 

»  Psa.  ix.  18.  "^  Psa.  xli.  1.  *  Isa.  x.  2. 

*  Ezek.  xviii.  12,  13. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS  5 

to  the  hungry,  to  bring  the  poor  that  are  cast  out 
to  one's  house,  and  when  one  sees  the  naked  to 
cover  him.^  That  highest  religious  experience,  to 
know  Yahweh,  accrues  to  him  who  "judges  the  cause? 
of  the  poor  and  needy,"  and  "  does  judgment  and  I 
justice,"  according  to  another  of  the  great  prophets. 
He  also  declares  that  sorrow  and  tribulation  as  divine 
visitations  shall  come  upon  him  who  buildeth 
his  house  by  unrighteousness  and  his  chambers  by 
injustice.^  In  like  manner  the  word  of  Yahweh  to 
another  prophet  explicitly  commands  as  a  religious 
duty  to  "show  mercy  and  compassion  every  man  to 
his  brother :  and  oppress  not  the  widow,  nor  the 
fatherless,  the  stranger,  nor  the  poor."  ^  The  writer  of 
Proverbs  regards  the  matter  from  the  same  religious 
point  of  view :  "  Kob  not  the  poor,  because  he  is 
poor,  neither  oppress  the  afflicted  in  the  gate :  for 
Yahweh  will  plead  their  cause,  and  despoil  the  life 
of  those  that  despoil  them."  * 

The  temptations  of  riches  are  also  considered  in 
a  religious  aspect  by  the  Deuteronomist  in  the 
warning:  "Beware  .  .  .  lest  when  thou  hast  eaten 
and  art  full,  and  hast  built  goodly  houses,  and  dwelt 
therein  ;  and  when  thy  herds  and  thy  flocks  multiply, 

^  laa.  Iviii.  6,  7.  ^  Jer.  xxii.  16.  *  Zech.  vii.  10. 

^  Prov.  xxii.  22. 


6  RICH  AND  POOR 

and  thy  silver  and  thy  gold  is  multiplied,  and  all 
that  thou  hast  is  multiplied ;  then  thine  heart  be 
lifted  up,  and  thou  forget  Yahweh  thy  God,  who 
brought  thee  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  .  .  . 
who  fed  thee  with  manna,  that  he  might  humble 
thee  .  .  .  and  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  My  power  and 
the  might  of  mine  hand  hath  gotten  me  this  wealth."^ 
It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  acquisition  of  wealth 
is  here  deprecated,  not  on  account  of  the  social  evils 
that  it  may  produce,  but  because  it  is  likely  to 
destroy  the  sense  of  dependence  upon  God  that 
from  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view  is  an  essential 
of  religion.  In  the  same  spirit  and  with  the  same 
peril  in  view  is  conceived  the  prayer  of  Agur :  "  Give 
me  neither  poverty  nor  riches  .  .  .  lest  I  be  full,  and 
deny  the^,  and  say.  Who  is  Yahweh  ?  or  lest  I  be 
poor,  and  steal,  and  use  profanely  the  name  of  my 
God."  2 

The  several  ordinances  of  the  Hebrew  legislation 
with  reference  to  the  relations  of  rich  and  poor 
become  intelligible  only  when  they  are  considered 
as  products  of  the  historical  periods  in  which  they 
originated,  and  to  the  exigencies  of  which  they  were 
adapted.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  exhortations 
and  requirements  of  the  prophets  delivered  as  "  the 

1  Deut.  viii.  11-14.  "  Prov.  xxx.  8,  9. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS  7 

word  of  Yahweh."  The  prophets  were  men  of  their 
time,  their  activity  was  called  forth  by  existing 
conditions,  and  their  ministry  was  directed  to  effect- 
ing the  reforms  that  they  saw  to  be  immediately 
urgent.  This  principle  of  interpretation  is  not, 
however,  to  be  so  construed  as  to  carry  a  denial 
of  the  reappearance  at  various  times  of  prescripts 
and  teachings  that  originated  in  an  earlier  period, 
and  that  were  found  to  be  adapted,  sometimes 
in  a  modified  form,  to  a  particular  stage  of  social 
evolution. 

The  term  "social  evolution"  is  used  advisedly 
to  characterise  the  course  of  the  social  life  of  the 
Jews  disclosed  in  their  history.  Their  conditions 
and  surroundings  in  the  different  periods  of  their 
national  existence  could  have  no  other  result  than  a 
passage  from  a  simple  to  a  complex  order  of  society. 

Prior  to  their  settlement  in  Canaan  the  people 
of  Israel  led  a  nomadic  life  in  pastoral  occupations, 
wandering  about  in  the  Sinai  peninsula  with  their 
flocks  and  herds.^  There  exist  few  historical  data 
relating  to  this  period.  Some  events  and  experiences 
have,  however,  left  an  indelible  mark  upon  the 
tradition  of  these  primitive  times.  Beneath  the 
embellishments   of    legend   and   the    accretions    of 

*  Buhl,  Die  sociahn  Verhaltnisse  der  Israeliten,  1899. 


8  EICH  AND  POOK 

tradition  are  discernible  historical  facts  that  one 
can  not  dispute,  for  the  reason  that  the  subsequent 
life  and  development  of  the  people  are  inexplicable 
without  them.  In  the  conflict  of  Israel  during  the 
historic  period  with  the  Canaanitish  religions — a 
conflict  in  which  they  were  often  defeated  and 
corrupted,  but  in  which  they  were  at  length  relatively 
successful — we  see  the  influence  of  a  great  religious 
personality  dimly  outlined  in  the  shadows  of  tradition, 
with  Sinai-Horeb  in  the  background.  The  Mosaic 
period  made  an  ineffaceable  impression  upon  the 
religious  and  ethical  life  of  the  people,  and  one  hears 
the  voice  of  the  great  lawgiver  in  the  prophets  and 
in  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  of  the  time  of  Josiah. 
It  is  evident  that  during  this  nomadic  period  Israel 
could  have  had  neither  a  national  existence  nor  an 
idea  of  becoming  a  State.  The  coherence  of  the 
several  tribes  was  due  to  the  instinct  of  self-defence 
and  to  a  common  faith  in  Yahweh  their  God,  who, 
they  believed,  was  mighty  in  battle,  and  delivered 
them  out  of  the  hands  of  their  enemies. 

For  a  people  in  such  conditions  a  social  problem 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word  could  not  have 
existed.  That  there  were  high  and  low,  rich 
and  poor,  owners  of  flocks  and  herds  and  inferiors 
who  depended  upon  them,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS  9 

But  the  relations  of  these  to  one  another  were,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  widely  different  from  those 
that  obtain  in  a  settled  commercial  or  even  agri- 
cultural community,  where  reciprocal  dependence 
is  slighter,  and  the  tenure  of  property  less  insecure. 
In  the  nomadic  state  the  simpleness  of  the  neces- 
saries and  the  absence  of  means  of  luxury,  together 
with  the  sense  of  independence  engendered  by  themode 
of  life,  have  a  tendency  to  produce  social  equality. 
The  subjective  conditions  of  social  inequality  were, 
however,  present  in  this  people,  since  human  nature 
was  in  the  field;  and  it  were  an  error  to  conceive 
the  age  as  one  of  idyllic  simplicity  and  unalloyed 
virtue.  These  nomads  were  not  without  the  crafti- 
ness that  appears  in  the  Bedouins  of  the  desert.^ 
The  Hebrew  tradition  has  preserved  instances  of 
an  artfulness  and  cunning  in  which  it  would  seem 
that  these  qualities  were  not  controlled  by  scruples 
of  conscience  with  respect  to  the  rights  of  fellow- 
men  or  even  of  kindred.  Jacob's  selfish  scheming 
in  his  relations  with  Laban  and  with  his  brother 
Esau  furnishes  a  parallel  to  some  of  the  methods 
whereby  in  modern  times  social  inequalities  arise, 
and  men  acquire  wealth  and  distinction.^ 

'  See  Nowack,  Hehrdische  Archiiologie,  1894,  i.  pp.  100  f. 
'^  Gen.  XXV.  31  f.  ;  xxx.  25-43.. 


10  EICH  AND  POOR 

The  settlement  in  Canaan  effected  a  radical 
change  in  the  life  of  the  people,  and  gave  a  new 
direction  to  their  social  development.  The  nomadic 
shepherds  and  herdsmen  were  transformed  into  agri- 
culturists, living  upon  their  lands,  or  residents  of 
villages  and  cities.  They  came  in  contact,  too,  with 
a  civilisation  much  more  advanced  than  their  own. 
From  all  we  can  learn  of  the  Canaanites  of  this  time, 
they  must  have  been  in  a  condition  of  development 
in  industries  and  arts  equal  to  that  of  Israel  in  the 
time  of  the  later  kings.^  The  writer  of  Deuteronomy 
speaks  of  the  land  of  Canaan  as  containing  at  the 
time  of  the  Hebrew  immigration  great  and  goodly 
cities  not  built  by  Israel,  houses  full  of  all  good 
things,  which  the  invaders  did  not  fill,  cisterns  hewn 
out,  which  they  did  not  hew,  and  vineyards  and 
olive  trees,  which  they  did  not  plant.^  Since  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  they  could  not  at  once  enter  into 
possession  of  the  country,  and  their  mission  must  be 
one  of  conquest,  it  is  evident  that  contact  with  its 
people,  even  in  a  hostile  relation,  could  not  but 
profoundly  influence  the  character  of  the  Hebrews. 
One  has  only  to  read  the  story  of  the  conflict  recorded 
in   Joshua   and  Judges,   and   the   history   of  their 

^  Buhl  refers  to  the  Tell-el-Amarna  Letters  for  evidence  of  the 
culture  of  the  Canaanites  at  the  time  in  question. 
2  Deut.  vi.  10  f. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        11 

religious  degeneracy,  to  see  that  if  the  Israelites 
were  in  the  end  outwardly  conquerors,  they  were 
inwardly  in  no  small  measure  the  conquered. 

The  Book  of  Judges,  as  recast  by  the  Deuteronomic 
compiler,^  sets  in  a  clear  light  the  relations  of  the 
two  peoples  in  the  passage  chap.  iii.  5-7  :  "  And  the 
children  of  Israel  dwelt  among  the  Canaanites  .  .  . ; 
and  they  took  their  daughters  to  be  their  wives,  and 
gave  their  own  daughters  to  their  sons,  and  served 
their  gods.  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  that 
which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh,  and  forgat 
Yahweh  their  God,  and  served  the  Baalim  and  the 
Asheroth."  A  temporary  deliverance^  when  "  Yahweh 
raised  up  a  saviour,"  is  represented  as  followed  by 
evil-doing  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh  that  results  in  a 
conquest  by  Moab,  in  consequence  of  which  "  the 
children  of  Israel  served  Eglon  the  king  of  Moab 
eighteen  years."  ^ 

There  is  no  trace  within  the  period  covered  by 
Joshua  and  Judges  of  serious  reflection  upon  the 
question  of  social  inequality.  Amidst  the  difference 
of  worldly  fortune  that  must  have  existed,  the  poor 
appear  to  have  lived  beside  the  rich  without  a  sense 
of  hardship  and  oppression,  and  no  voice  is  heard 

^  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testavient,  8th 
edit.  p.  167  f.  '^  Judges  iii.  12-15. 


12  EICH  AND  POOR 

in  behalf  of  the  former  and  in  denunciation  of  the 
latter.  Leadership  was  not  a  prerogative  of  wealth, 
but  was  attained  by  men  of  "  valour."  Jephtha  was 
a  man  of  low  birth  and  an  outcast,  who  fought  his 
way  to  the  distinction  of  a  judge ;  and  Gideon,  when 
conscious  of  a  call  to  leadership,  pleads  the  meanness 
of  his  station,  his  family  being  "the  poorest  in 
Manasseh  "  and  he  "  the  least  in  his  father's  house." 

A  career  that  ended  in  eminence  was  sometimes 
begun  under  disgraceful  conditions,  and  supported 
by  "  vain  and  light  fellows,"  who  were  induced  by 
money  or  the  prospect  of  plunder  to  follow  a 
"  valiant "  leader.  In  the  unorganised  social  con- 
ditions prowess  easily  made  itself  master.  There 
was  no  priestly  or  military  aristocracy.  As  fast  as 
the  land  was  conquered  it  was  doubtless  divided 
among  the  several  tribes  according  to  the  number  of 
men  in  each  capable  of  bearing  arms.  This  principle 
of  equality  under  which  the  Hebrews  began  to 
establish  themselves  in  Canaan  is  significant.  Agri- 
culture was  the  chief  occupation  of  all,  and  a  con- 
siderable time  must  have  elapsed  before  the  relations 
of  rich  and  poor  became  a  "  burning  question." 

The  early  period  of  the  kings  presents  sub- 
stantially   similar    social    conditions.        Of    Saul's 

^  Judges  vi.  14  ;  xi.  1. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        13 

parentage  nothing  is  said  except  that  his  father  was 
"a  mighty  man  of  valour,"  although  there  are 
indications  of  his  possessing  considerable  wealth  for 
the  time.  As  king,  Saul  continued  to  live  as  an 
ordinary  farmer,  and  when  the  messengers  of  Jabesh, 
seeking  "in  all  the  borders  of  Israel"  whether 
there  be  none  to  save  their  beleagured  city,  come  to 
Gibeah,  they  find  Saul  the  king  "  following  the  oxen 
out  of  the  field."  ^  He  made  no  display  of  royal 
splendour  during  his  reign,  but  continued  to  live 
upon  his  estate  with  one  wife  and  one  concubine.^ 

Prior  to  and  during  the  earliest  period  of  the 
kings,  commerce,  by  means  of  which  social  inequality 
is  quickly  developed  through  the  gaining  of  great 
wealth  by  successful  trade,  was  unknown  to  the 
Hebrews.  They  were  cut  off  from  the  sea,  and 
so  long  as  the  Canaanites  were  unsubdued,  trade 
by  means  of  caravans  was  impracticable  to  them, 
although  it  was  carried  on  by  the  latter.  A  more 
extended  conquest  and  a  greater  strength  and  solidity 
of  the  government  than  then  existed  were  necessary 
before  simplicity  of  life  and  relative  equality  of 
condition  could  be  broken  in  upon  by  occupations 
that  gave  rise  to  the  problem  of  riches  and  poverty. 

^  1  Sam.  xi.  1-5. 
2  1  Sam.  xiv.  50  ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  8. 


14  EICH  AND  POOE 

Under  the  rule  of  Solomon  the  monarchy  began 
to  bear  its  legitimate  fruits  of  social  inequality. 
While  the  splendour  of  his  court  was  supported  in  a 
measure  out  of  the  profits  of  a  commerce  that  he 
skilfully  conducted,  it  is  doubtless  true  that  the 
people  had  no  small  part  of  the  burden  to  bear.  The 
wealth  that  he  acquired  by  trade  was  chiefly  em- 
ployed in  the  gratification  of  his  inordinate  love  of 
luxury  and  display.  We  read  of  rich  works  of  art, 
two  hundred  targets  of  beaten  gold  of  six  hundred 
shekels  each,  three  hundred  shields  of  beaten  gold, 
and  a  great  throne  of  ivory  overlaid  with  the  finest 
gold.  All  his  drinking-vessels  were  of  gold.  Such 
things,  says  the  narrator,  "  were  nothing  accounted 
of  in  the  days  of  Solomon."  When  besides  all  this 
we  take  into  the  account  the  fact  that  he  "loved 
many  strange  women,  together  with  the  daughter  of 
Pharaoh,  women  of  the  Moabites,  Ammonites, 
Edomites,  Zidonions,  and  Hittites,"  maintaining  a 
domestic  establishment  of  "seven  hundred  wives, 
princesses,  and  three  hundred  concubines,"  ^  we  can 
form  a  conception  of  the  expenses  of  his  royal  state 
and  the  social  inequalities  that  it  entailed. 

The  author  of  First  Samuel,  writing  nearly  three 
hundred  years  later  than  Solomon's  time,  presents  a 
'  1  Kings  X.,  xi. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        15 

picture  of  royal  oppression  and  of  the  hardships  of 
the  people  that  it  produced,  when  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Samuel  a  warning  against  kings.  While 
the  passage  doubtless  had  in  view  royal  exactions  in 
general,  there  is  reason  for  applying  it  to  the  reign 
of  Solomon,  for  we  read  that  he  had  twelve  officers 
over  all  Israel,  who  provided  victuals  for  his  table, 
doubtless  through  a  levy  upon  the  people — ten  fat 
oxen  and  twenty  oxen  out  of  the  pastures  and  a 
hundred  sheep  for  one  day,  besides  numerous  other 
supplies.^ 

The  passage  in  First  Samuel  referred  to  represents 
the  prophet  as  saying  that  the  king  will  take  the 
sons  of  the  people  to  run  before  his  chariots,  to 
plow,  and  to  harvest,  and  their  daughters  to  be 
cooks ;  that  he  will  take  their  fields,  vineyards,  and 
oliveyards,  even  the  best  of  them,  and  give  them  to 
his  servants,  and  the  tenth  of  their  flocks,  and  they 
shall  be  his  servants,  and  shall  cry  out  in  that  day.^ 
It  accords  with  the  reference  of  this  passage  to 
Solomon's  reign  that  he  has  been  given  in  the  history 
of  the  times  a  character  for  oppression  and  cruelty. 
His  son  is  represented  as  saying  to  the  people  who 
murmured  against  his  rule  :  "  My  father  did  lade 
you  with  a  heavy  yoke,  I  will  add  to  your  yoke :  my 

1  1  Kings  iv.  7  fi:  ;  22-24,  2  i  gam.  yiii.  11-18. 


16  EICH  AND  POOR 

father  chastised  you  with  whips,  but  I  will  chastise 
you  with  scorpions."  ^ 

The  social  conditions  went  from  bad  to  worse  under 
the  successors  of  Solomon  both  in  the  northern  and 
southern  kingdoms.  That  the  writer  of  First  Samuel 
did  not  paint  the  picture  of  royal  oppression  in  too 
dark  colours  is  evident  from  the  violent  procedure  of 
Ahab  in  possessing  himself  of  Naboth's  vineyard  on 
a  false  charge  put  forth  by  Jezebel  that  he  had  cursed 
God  and  the  king.^  With  the  increase  of  wealth 
went  increase  of  greed,  more  marked  social  dis- 
tinctions, and  conscienceless  oppression  of  the  poor. 
The  prosperous  abandoned  themselves  to  luxury  and 
a  life  of  pleasure.  We  read  of  summer-houses  and 
winter-houses  and  houses  inlaid  with  ivory,  in  which 
the  rich  lie  upon  beds  of  ivory,  and  eat  the  lambs  out 
of  the  flocks  and  the  calves  out  of  the  stall,  and  sing 
idle  songs  to  the  sound  of  the  viol,  and  drink  wine  in 
bowls,  and  anoint  themselves  with  the  chief  oint- 
ments, while  the  women  demand  wine  of  their 
husbands. 

Amidst  the  graphic  descriptions  of  this  rioting  we 
hear  the  pathetic  refrain  of  the  prophet  crying  out 
against  the  oppression  of  the  poor  and  the  crushing 
of  the  needy.     They  that  build  houses  of  hewn  stone 

^  1  Kings  xii,  11.  '1  Kinga  xxi. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        17 

have  trampled  upon  the  poor  and  taken  exactions 
of  wheat  from  him.  They  afflict  the  just,  take 
bribes,  and  turn  aside  the  needy  in  the  gate  from 
their  right.  It  is  "an  evil  time."  Those  who 
"  make  the  ephah  small  and  the  shekel  great,  and 
deal  falsely  with  balances  of  deceit,"  "  buy  the  poor 
for  silver,  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes,  and  sell 
the  refuse  of  the  wheat."  Pledges  were  seized  of  the 
debtors  who  could  not  pay,  and  the  creditors  "  lay 
themselves  down  beside  every  altar  upon  clothes 
taken  in  pledge,  and  in  the  house  of  God  they  drink 
the  wine  of  such  as  have  been  fined."  ^ 

The  extent  of  the  iniquity  and  oppression,  from 
which  the  poor  were  the  chief  sufferers,  may  be 
inferred  from  the  frequent  references  of  the  prophets 
to  the  corruption  of  "  the  mighty "  in  the  land. 
When  "  men  of  high  degree  are  a  lie  "  it  goes  hard  with 
the  men  of  low  degree.  The  prophets,  who  were  the 
champions  of  the  latter,  charge  that  corruption  had 
invaded  the  high  places  of  justice,  so  that  a  poor 
man  had  no  chance  of  getting  his  rights.  The  seats 
of  the  judges  were  either  occupied  by  the  rich  and 
powerful,  or  these  influenced  judgment  in  the  interest 
of  their  exactions.  Accordingly  we  read  of  Jerusalem 
that  "  the  heads  thereof  judge  for  reward,  and  the 

'  Amos  ii.  8  ;  iii.  15  ;  iv.  1  ;  v.  11  ;  viii.  4. 
2 


18  EICH  AND  POOK 

priests  thereof  teach  for  hire,  and  the  prophets 
thereof  divine  for  money  " ;  "  The  prince  asketh,  and 
the  judge  is  ready  for  a  reward,  and  the  great  man 
uttereth  the  mischief  of  his  soul ;  thus  they  weave 
it  together."  The  rulers  "  hate  the  good,  and  love 
the  evil " ;  they  "  eat  the  flesh  of  the  people,  and  flay 
their  skin  from  off  them."  A  lamentable  state  of 
things  is  indicated  in  the  mention  of  "the  scant 
measure  that  is  abominable,"  the  "wicked  balances," 
and  "the  bag  of  deceitful  weights,"  in  connection 
with  the  remark  that  "the  rich  men  are  full  of 
violence."  ^ 

One  of  the  greatest  of  the  prophets  of  Judah 
declares  that  "the  princes  are  the  companions  of 
thieves;  every  one  loveth  gifts,  and  followeth  after 
rewards  ;  they  judge  not  the  fatherless,  neither  doth 
the  cause  of  the  widow  come  unto  them."  The  social 
evils  were  intensified  by  the  greed  that  accumulated 
vast  estates  in  the  hands  of  a  few.  The  prophet 
regarded  this  as  so  great  an  evil  to  those  of  whose 
cause  he  was  the  champion,  that  he  exclaims : 
"  Woe  unto  them  that  join  house  to  house,  that  lay 
field  to  field,  till  there  be  no  room,  and  ye  be  made 
to  dwell  alone  in  the  midst  of  the  land."  ^  Since 
only  the  owner  of  land  had  the  rights  of  a  citizen,  it 

'  Micah  iii.  1  f. ;  11.  -  Isa.  i.  17  ;  iii.  15  ;  v.  8. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        19 

is  evident  that  the  consequences  of  such  accumula- 
tions involved  a  worse  fortune  than  poverty  for  the 
unhappy  peasants  who,  despoiled  of  their  small 
holdings,  are  "  made  to  dwell  alone  in  the  midst  of 
the  land,"  and  who  have  no  choice  but  to  leave  the 
country  or  become  the  slaves  of  the  great  proprietors,^ 
the  hard-hearted  men  who  "grind  the  face  of  the 
poor." 

The  uses  to  which  some  of  the  wealth  obtained  by 
cunning  and  dishonesty  was  put — uses  that  suggest  re- 
flection on  the  pernicious  influence  of  riches  upon  the 
possessor  himself  to  whom  righteousness  and  mercy 
are  wanting — are  indicated  in  the  vivid  picture  drawn 
by  Isaiah  of  the  meretricious  splendour  of  the  women 
of  Jerusalem.  They  are  "haughty,  and  walk  with 
stretched-forth  necks  and  wanton  eyes,  mincing  as 
they  go,  and  making  a  tinkling  with  their  feet." 
They  have  ankle-chains  and  sashes  and  perfume- 
boxes  and  rings  and  nose-jewels  and  fine  linen  and 
turbans  and  veils.  A  royal  ofl&cer  has  a  costly 
sepulchre  hewn,  and  rides  in  a  sumptuous  chariot.^ 

The  overthrow  of  the  northern  kingdom,  which 
from  the  religious  point  of  view  of  the  people  was 
a   fearful  judgment   of  God   upon   its  cruelty  and 


^  Marti,  Bas  Buch  Jesaia,  1900,  p.  55. 
-  Isa.  iii.  16  f.  ;  xxii.  18. 


20  EICH  AND  POOK 

oppression,  did  not  put  a  stop  to  the  social  vices  of 
Judah,  although  there  were  not  wanting  teachers  who 
used  this  calamity^  to  point  a  moral.-^  There  is  a 
note  of  lamentation  in  Jeremiah  over  the  failure  of 
judgment  between  a  man  and  his  neighbour,  over  the 
oppression  of  the  fatherless  and  the  widow,  and  the 
shedding  of  innocent  blood.^  Zephaniah  denounces 
the  princes  as  roaring  lions,  and  the  judges  as  evening 
wolves.^  The  good  king  Josiah  is  praised  because  he 
"judged  the  cause  of  the  poor  and  needy,"  but  a  woe 
is  pronounced  upon  Jehoiakim  because  he  built  his 
house  by  unrighteousness  and  his  chambers  by 
injustice,  and  used  his  neighbour's  service  without 
wages.'* 

Thus  the  prophets  prior  to  the  captivity  appear 
as  the  champions  of  the  poor  and  oppressed.  They 
speak,  as  the  representatives  of  religion,  the  message 
that  they  believed  was  given  them  by  Yahweh,  and 
denounce  injustice,  cruelty,  and  dishonesty.  By 
solemn  warnings  and  awful  threats  of  divine  judgment 
they  seek  to  awaken  the  conscience  of  the  rich  and 
mighty,  and  to  move  them  to  mercy  and  charity. 
Had  their  ideal  of  social  virtue  been  adopted  by  their 
people,  how  different  might  have  been  the  fortune  of 

^  Jor.  vii.  15.  ^  Jer.  vii.  6.  '  Zeph.  iii.  3. 

*  Jer.  xiii.  13,  16. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        21 

this  wonderful  nation !  But  ideals  are  effective  for 
permanent  reform  only  when  men  are  enlisted  in 
their  practical  realisation.  "  These  prophets  hovered 
as  idealists  too  much  above  reality,  and  did  not  know 
how  effectively  to  realise  their  ideals  by  means  of 
practical  measures,  as  is  shown  especially  in  regard 
to  the  violations  of  justice  lamented  by  all  of 
them.  Each  of  them  lays  bare  the  evils,  but  no 
one  of  them  knows  the  deepest  roots  of  them, 
and  seeks  to  secure  for  the  administration  of  justice 
an  organisation  independent  of  the  arbitrary  action 
of  individuals."  ^ 

Good  fortune  befell  the  proletariat  when  after 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (B.C.  597)  the  second  deportation 
(586)  took  away  the  peasant  population,  and  left  the 
land  in  the  possession  of  the  poorest  classes.  The 
comparatively  few  who  returned  from  the  captivity 
in  536  constituted  a  Persian  province  under  op- 
pressive taxation.  Nehemiah  calls  them  "slaves  of 
the  Persian  king."  Drought  and  crop-failures 
increased  the  distress.  But  the  common  misfortunes 
and  sufferings  did  not  soften  the  hearts  of  those  who 
were  in  a  position  to  take  any  advantage  of  their 
neighbours. 

We     hear,    accordingly,    in    Malachi     the     old 

*  Nowack,  Die  socialen  Probleme  in  larael,  1892,  p.  11. 


22  EICH  AND  POOE 

refrain  of  the  earlier  prophets  against  the  lawlessness 
and  greed  of  the  oppressors.  Yahweh  is  "  wearied  " 
with  the  words  of  the  people  who  say,  "  Every  one 
that  doeth  evil  is  good  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh,"  and 
ask  "  Where  is  the  God  of  judgment  ? "  But  He 
"  will  be  a  swift  witness  against  the  false-swearers, 
and  those  who  oppress  the  hireling  in  his  wages,  the 
widow,  and  the  fatherless,  and  turn  aside  the  stranger 
from  his  right."  ^  Nehemiah  gives  a  vivid  portrayal 
of  the  condition  of  the  poorer  classes,  whom  he  took 
measures  to  relieve.  They  had  "  mortgaged  their 
fields  and  vineyards  and  houses,"  They  had 
"borrowed  money  for  the  king's  tribute."  Their 
children  were  "in  bondage"  as  servants,  and  they 
were  powerless  to  help  themselves,  for  other  men  had 
their  fields  and  vineyards.  Nehemiah  holds  "  a 
great  assembly  against "  the  "  nobles  and  rulers,"  and 
charges  them  with  exacting  usury,  "  every  one  of  his 
brother."  They  cannot  deny  the  charge,  and  they 
promise  to  restore  to  the  poor  what  they  had  exacted 
of  them.^  The  introduction  of  Ezra's  legislation 
and  the  subsequent  stricter  observance  of  the  law 
contributed  to  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the 
poor  and  to  the  later  happier  condition  of  the  people. 
Sources  are  unfortunately  wanting  for  details  of  the 

'  Mai.  ii.  17  ;  iii.  5  "^  Neh.  v.  4-14. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        23 

social  life  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  Persian  period. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Greek  period.  Josephus 
appears  to  have  had  little  interest  in  social  questions. 
We  know  only  of  a  general  prosperity,  of  a  contact 
with  Greek  civilisation,  of  an  increasing  population, 
and  of  a  regulation  of  personal  relations  by  the 
observance  of  the  law.^  During  the  period  of  the 
Maccabees,  under  whom  the  Jews  secured  independ- 
ence, there  seems  to  have  been  a  marked  improve- 
ment in  social  conditions,  due  in  part  to  the  posses- 
sion of  some  coast  cities  and  consequent  facilities 
for  commerce.  The  writer  of  1  Maccabees  describes  in 
a  somewhat  high -wrought  poetic  strain  the  prosper- 
ous and  happy  condition  of  the  land  under  the  rule 
of  the  great  Simon  : — 

They  could  till  their  land  in  peace. 

The  land  yielded  its  products. 
And  the  trees  of  the  field  their  fruits. 

He  [Simon]  made  peace  in  the  land, 

And  Israel  was  greatly  rejoiced  ; 
Every  one  sat  under  his  vine  and  fig-tree, 

And  no  one  made  them  to  fear. 

He  lifted  up  all  the  needy  of  his  people, 
He  was  full  of  zeal  for  the  law.  ^ 

•  Buhl,  xihi  supra,  p.  26.  -  1  Mace.  xiv.  G-15. 


24  RICH  AND  POOR 

From  all  that  we  can  learn  of  the  social  con- 
ditions of  the  people  during  the  last  century  before 
the  Christian  era,  they  were  far  more  favourable  to 
the  lower  classes  than  during  the  later  period  of  the 
kings.  Under  Herod  the  Great  the  country  enjoyed 
a  high  degree  of  economic  prosperity,  the  land  was 
industriously  cultivated,  and  many  products  were 
exported.  The  producing  power  of  the  people  is 
evident  from  the  enormous  contributions  levied  for 
Rome,  for  the  support  of  the  court  of  Herod,  and  for 
the  temple.^  We  are  not  to  believe,  however,  that 
the  social  distinctions  of  former  times  did  not  exist, 
and  that  there  were  no  poor  in  the  land.  Among 
the  Essenes  alone  was  an  attempt  made  to  establish 
a  social  order  on  the  basis  of  the  equality  that  was 
in  accordance  with  the  ancient  ideal  of  the  Hebrew 
race. 

The  course  of  our  inquiry  leads  us  to  a  con- 
sideration at  this  point  of  the  endeavours  made  to 
realise  this  ideal,  or  at  least  to  relieve  the  distress  of 
the  poor  and  curb  the  greed  of  the  rich.  It  may  be 
well  to  note  first,  however,  that,  what  is  a  'priori  to  be 
looked  for  in  a  literature  written  at  widely  different 
times  and  by  men  having  different  points  of  view,  the 
conditions  of  the  social  problem  are  not  uniformly 

1  See  Biilil,  pp.  27,  l'26f. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        25 

regarded  and  treated  throughout  the  Old  Testament. 
The  attitude  toward  wealth,  for  example,  is  now 
friendly,  and  now  uncompromisingly  hostile.  The 
words  of  Hannah,  "Yahweh  maketh  poor,  and 
Yahweh  maketh  rich,"  express  the  opinion  of  many 
of  the  writers,  since  they  imply  the  Hebrew  doctrine 
that  God  is  the  author  of  all  things,  making  the 
light  and  the  darkness,  peace  and  evil.^  We  find,  then, 
the  teaching  that  "  the  blessing  of  God  maketh  rich," 
and  that  Solomon  received  riches  and  honour  from 
God  because  he  did  not  ask  for  them,  but  for  wisdom. 
From  the  religious  point  of  view  that  all  the 
awards  for  conduct  are  directly  bestowed  by  the 
Deity,  and  that  the  reward  of  piety  is  worldly  pros- 
perity, we  should  expect  to  find  the  doctrine  that 
"  wealth  and  riches  are  in  the  house "  of  the  man 
who  fears  Yahweh,  and  that  long  life  is  in  the  right 
hand  of  Wisdom,  and  in  her  left  riches  and  honour. 
It  is  openly  expressed  that  as  a  mark  of  the  divine 
favour  Job  was,  at  the  end  of  his  tribulations, 
"  blessed "  of  God  with  greater  wealth  than  he  had 
before,  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  in  Proverbs 
that  "the  reward  of  humility  and  the  fear  of 
Yahweh  is  riches  and  honour  and  life."  ^ 

'  1  Sam.  ii.  7  ;  Isa.  xlv.  7. 

2  1  Kings  iii.  13  ;  Psa.  cxii.  3  ;  Prov.  iii.  16  ;  viii.  18  ;  xiv.  24  ; 
xxii.  4  ;  Job  xlii.  12  f. 


26  RICH  AND  POOR 

On  the  other  hand,  although  there  is  no  indication 
in  these  passages  that  the  writers  did  not  think 
wealth  a  good  in  itself,  since  they  regarded  it  as 
bestowed  of  God  as  a  reward  of  piety,  there  are  not 
wanting  others  of  a  quite  different  purport.  Wisdom 
is  to  be  preferred  to  riches,  and  he  that  maketli 
haste  to  acquire  them  commits  a  sin  that  will  not  go 
unpunished.  Hence  the  admonition,  "Weary  not 
thyself  to  be  rich,"  for  "  riches  certainly  make  them- 
selves wings,  like  an  eagle  that  flieth  toward  heaven." 
Agur's  prayer  is  against  riches  as  a  gift  of  God,  in 
view  of  the  peril  to  the  soul  attendant  on  the 
possession  of  them — pride,  denial  of  God,  and 
blasphemy.^  The  grasping  greediness  of  the  rich, 
their  violence  and  heartlessness,  in  the  time  of  the 
prophets,  led  these  teachers  to  identify  them  in 
their  denunciations  with  the  wicked  and  godless. 
Accordingly,  in  the  exilic  prophecy  of  the  suffering 
servant  of  God  it  is  said  of  him :  "  And  they  made 
his  grave  with  the  wicked,  and  with  the  rich  in  his 
death "  - — he  died  as  only  the  godless  and  rich 
die. 

This  association  of  wickedness  with  riches  was  a 
lamentable  fact  of  life  that  presented  itself  to  the 
pious  observer  and  champion  of  the  oppressed,  and 

^  Prov.  iii.  13  ;  xiv.  20  ;  xxiii.  4  ;  xxx.  8.  '  Is;i.  Hii.  9. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        27 

led  him  to  regard  the  pursuit  of  wealth  as 
synonymous  with  godlessness.  If  God  was  the 
Father  of  the  fatherless  and  the  Friend  of  the  poor, 
the  man  must  be  ungodly  who  lived  in  luxury  while 
they  starved.  How  much  more  he  who  oppressed 
them  with  usury,  or  by  false  dealing  snatched  the 
bread  from  their  mouths  ! 

Another  equally  logical  conclusion  from  generally 
accepted  premises  might  have  led  to  a  perplexing 
antinomy  in  the  thouglit  of  psalmists  and  writers  of 
"  wisdom  "  apothegms.  How  can  the  doctrine  that 
riches  are  a  gift  of  God,  the  reward  of  piety,  and  a 
token  of  divine  approval,  be  reconciled  with  the  fact 
that  they  are  gained  by  extortion  and  godlessness, 
and  are  a  sign  of  a  selfish  and  worldly  disposition  in 
the  possessor  of  them  ?  If  the  Hebrew  thinkers 
were  conscious  of  this  antinomy,  it  is  not  easy  to 
conceive  of  a  solution  of  it  on  their  grounds. 
Another  difficulty  they  did,  however,  endeavour  to 
resolve — the  reconciliation  with  the  divine  goodness 
of  the  suffering  and  misery  of  the  righteous  poor  and 
the  prosperity  and  enjoyment  of  the  godless  rich. 
This  life  did  not,  however,  furnish  sufficient  data  for 
a  solution.  They  have  recourse  accordingly  to  death 
and  Sheol.  The  writer  of  Psalm  xlix.  sets  in  glaring 
contrast  the  end  of  those  that  trust  in  their  wealth 


28  RICH  AND  POOR 

and  of  himself,  a  representative  of  the  pious  poor. 
The  former,  like  "  the  beasts  that  perish,"  go  down 
into  the  underworld,  whence  they  will  never  come 
up  to  "  see  the  light."  "  They  are  appointed  as  a 
flock  for  Sheol ;  Death  shall  be  their  shepherd." 
But  as  to  him,  "  God  will  redeem  his  soul  from  the 
power  of  Sheol,"  for  He  "  will  receive  "  him.^ 

The  author  of  Psalm  Ixxiii.  says  that  he  had  well- 
nigh  gone  astray  (into  unbelief)  when  he  saw  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked,  who  increase  in  riches, 
until  he  "  went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God " 
(penetrated  into  God's  holy  mysteries),  "and  con- 
sidered their  latter  end."  Then  he  found  that  God 
"  casts  them  down  to  destruction."  But  as  for  him, 
God  will  guide  him  with  His  counsel,  and  afterward 
receive  (take,  translate)  him  in  glory.  This  solution, 
which,  the  reader  will  note,  does  not  proceed  upon 
social,  but  upon  religious  premises,  must  be  regarded  as 
quite  inadequate  and  one-sided.  Its  point  of  view  is 
purely  personal.  The  writers,  who  seem  keenly  to  have 
felt  the  contrast  between  their  own  worldly  fortune 
and  that  of  the  rich,  content  themselves  with  con- 
signing these  godless  persons  to  the  underworld  and 

^  The  writer  doubtless  had  in  mind  tlie  fortune  of  Enoch 
and  Elijali  (Gen.  v.  22 ;  2  Kings  ii.  11),  and  expected  to  be 
" ransomed "  from  death.  As  to  the  rich,  "the  redemption  of 
their  soul  is  costly,  and  must  be  let  alone  for  ever." 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        29 

with  rejoicing  iu  their  own  exemption  from  a  descent 
to  this  gloomy  abode.  The  radical  defect  in  this 
attempt  to  solve  the  difficult  problem  and  "  vindicate 
the  ways  of  God "  is  the  unconcern  that  leaves  out 
of  the  account  the  thousands  of  the  poor  and 
oppressed,  the  victims  of  the  heartless  rich.  The 
writers  could  certainly  not  have  thought  that  all 
these  would  escape  Sheol  after  the  manner  of 
Elijah  !  They  were,  however,  poets,  not  philosophers. 
Whatever  differences  in  point  of  view  may  appear 
respecting  riches,  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the 
one  common  and  prominent  note  in  prophet,  poet, 
and  legislator  is  benevolence  toward  the  needy  and 
oppressed,  the  fatherless  and  widows.  The  stranger 
also  receives  a  share  of  kindly  consideration.  If  these 
idealists,  whose  writings  constitute  a  noble  literature, 
devised  no  practical  measures  for  the  permanent 
embodiment  of  their  ideas  in  social  institutions,  they 
must  at  least  have  contributed  a  powerful  impulse 
in  this  direction.  Among  the  traits  of  the  "just" 
man  prominence  is  given  to  mercy  and  beneficence. 
"  He  hath  not  wronged  any,  but  hath  restored  to  the 
debtor  his  pledge,  hath  spoilec^  none  by  violence, 
hath  given  his  bread  to  the  hungry,  and  hath  covered 
the  naked  with  a  garment."  This  man  has  the  divine 
favour  and   protection.       His   mode  of  life  has   a 


30  KICK  AND  POOE 

religious  significance.  "  He  shall  surely  live."  "  He 
shall  not  die  "  (in  the  impending  judgment  of  God).^ 
The  wisdom  literature  contains  many  fine  admonitions 
of  a  humanitarian  character :  "  Withhold  not  good 
from  them  to  whom  it  is  due,  when  it  is  in  the 
power  of  thine  hand  to  do  it "  ;  "  He  that  despiseth 
his  neighbour  sinneth :  but  he  that  hath  pity  on  the 
poor,  happy  is  he  "  ;  "  He  that  hath  a  bountiful  eye 
shall  be  blessed."  ^  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  in  Job's 
justification  of  himself  through  a  retrospect  of  his 
life  in  two  of  the  finest  passages  in  the  Old  Testament 
he  gives  prominence  to  his  kindness  to  the  poor : — 

Because  I  delivered  the  poor  that  cried, 

The  fatherless  also,  that  had  none  to  help  him. 

The  blessing  of  him   that  was  ready  to  perish   came 

upon  me  : 
And  I  caused  the  widow's  heart  to  sing  for  joy  .   .  . 
My  justice  was  as  a  robe  and  a  diadem. 
I  was  eyes  to  the  blind, 
And  feet  was  I  to  the  lame. 
I  was  a  father  to  the  needy : 

And  the  cause  of  him  that  I  knew  not  I  searched  out. 
And  I  brake  the  jaws  of  the  unrighteous, 
And  plucked  the  prey  out  of  his  teeth. 

If  I  have  withheld  the  poor  from  their  desire, 
Or  have  caused  the  eyes  of  the  widow  to  fail  j 
Or  have  eaten  my  morsel  alone, 
And  the  fatherless  hath  not  eaten  thereof  ;  .   .  . 

1  Ezek.  iviii.  7  S.     Cf.  Bertholet,  Das  Buck  Eczekiel,  1897  ; 
and  see  Isa.  Iviii.  6  ff.  "  Prov.  iii.  27  ;  xiv.  21 ;  xxii.  9. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        31 

If  I  have  seen  any  perish  for  want  of  clothing, 

Or  that  the  needy  had  no  covering  ; 

If  his  loins  have  not  blessed  me, 

And  if  he  were   not  warmed   with   the   fleece  of  my 

sheep  ; 
If  I  have  lifted  up  my  hand  against  the  fatherless, 
Because  I  saw  my  help  in  the  gate  : 
Then  let  my  shoulder  fall  from  the  shoulder  blade. 
And  mine  arm  be  broken  from  the  bone.^ 

We  must  go  to  the  Law  in  order  to  find  the 
attempts  made  practically  to  give  form  and  efficacy 
to  the  humanitarian  ideals  that  grace  the  literature 
of  the  golden  age  of  the  nation.  Here  we  meet  with 
admonitions  that  are  grounded  upon  principles 
fundamental  in  charity  and  unsurpassed  in  any 
religious  teaching.  In  the  so-called  Holiness  Law  ^ 
we  read :  "  Thou  shalt  not  take  vengeance,  nor  bear 
any  grudge  against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."  ^  In  the 
document  known  as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  *  is  a 
humane  requirement  as  to  pledges  :  "  If  thou  at  all 
take  thy  neighbour's  garment  to  pledge,  thou  shalt 
restore  it  unto  him  by  that  the  sun  goeth  down  :  for 

'  Job  xxix.  12  ff.  ;  xxxi.  16  ff. 

-  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi.,  incorporated  in  the  Priests'  Code,  and  of 
exilic  or  post-exilic  date.  Driver,  Iiitroduction  to  Old  Testament 
Literature,  8th  edit.  p2>.  47  ff.  ^  Lev.  xix.  18. 

■*  Exod.  XX.  22-xxiii.  33.  See  Driver,  pp.  38  ff.  and  Holziuger, 
Exodus,  1900,  pp.  78-103. 


32  KICH  AND  POOR 

that  is  his  only  covering,  it  is  his  garment  for  his 
skin :  wherein  shall  he  sleep  ? "  Then  follows  the 
religious  ground  of  the  humanity  enjoined:  "And 
it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  he  crieth  unto  me,  that  I 
will  hear  ;  for  I  am  gracious."  ^  The  principle  that 
we  should  put  ourselves  in  thought  and  feeling  in 
the  place  of  those  whose  condition  appeals  to  our 
benevolence,  is  finely  expressed  in  Deuteronomy 
with  regard  to  the  humane  treatment  of  slaves: 
"  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bond- 
man in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  Yahweh  thy  God 
redeemed  thee  :  therefore  I  command  thee  this  thing 
to-day."  2 

The  humane  sentiments  that  find  expression  in 
such  admonitions  were  embodied  in  definite  legisla- 
tion, which  doubtless  gradually  grew  out  of  the 
exigencies  of  the  people  after  they  had  become  settled 
agriculturists  and  dwellers  in  cities  in  Canaan.  In 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  we  find  an  attempt  to 
alleviate  the  hard  fortune  of  the  men  who  were 
obliged  to  sell  themselves  or  their  children  into 
slavery  on  account  of  poverty,  or  who,  when  caught 
in  a  theft,  were  unable  to  pay  the  damages.  Slavery 
is  recognised  as  an  institution  that  is  permitted,  and 
that  is  to  be  regulated  in  the  interest  of  alleviating 

1  Exod.  xxii.  26  f.  '•*  Dout.  xv.  15. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        33 

its  burdens.^  It  is  not  condemned  as  such,  and  no 
measures  are  taken  to  abolish  it.  The  relief  ordered 
in  the  law  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  provides  for 
the  release  of  a  Hebrew  slave  without  ransom  at  the 
end  of  the  sixth  year  of  his  service.  "If  he  be 
married,  then  his  wife  shall  go  out  with  him.  If  his 
master  give  him  a  wife  [one  of  his  female  slaves], 
and  she  bear  him  sons  or  daughters,  the  wife  and 
her  children  shall  be  his  master's,  and  he  shall  go 
out  by  himself."  ^  If  he  choose,  however,  he  may 
remain,  and  be  a  slave  "  for  ever."  In  the  later 
legislation  of  Deuteronomy  this  law  is  repeated  with 
a  modification  in  the  interest  of  the  slave.  He 
should  not  be  allowed  to  "go  empty"  at  the  end 
of  the  six  years,  but  should  be  "  liberally  furnished 
out  of  the  flock,  threshing-floor,  and  wine-press  "  of 
the  master.  "As  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  blessed 
thee  thou  shalt  give  unto  him."  ^ 

The  enactments  for  the  relief  of  the  poor  borrower 
are  particularly  interesting.  In  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  a  man  who  has  lent  money  to  a  poor 
person  is  forbidden  to  be  to  him  as  a  "creditor," 
that  is,  probably,  shall  not  distress  him,  so  that  he 

^  Gen.  xii.  16  ;  xvii.  23  ;  xxiv.  35  (slaves  given  by  God) ;  xxx.  43 ; 
Exod.  xxi.  4. 

'^  Exod.  xxi.  2-4.     For  the  provisions  relating  to  a  daughter  sold 
89  a  concubine  see  vv.  7-11.  *  Deut,  xv.  12  ff. 

3 


34  EICH  AND  POOE 

must  sell  bis  house,  or  sell  himself  into  slavery.^ 
The  selling  of  children  by  a  parent  on  account  of 
the  severity  of  the  creditor  is  mentioned  in  2  Kings 
iv.  1.  In  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  the  taking 
of  interest  from  a  fellow-countryman  is  forbidden, 
but  is  allowed  from  a  "  foreigner."  This  enactment 
is  repeated  in  the  Holiness  Law  without  special 
mention  of  the  foreigner.  The  creditor  appears, 
however,  to  have  been  protected,  and  had  the  right 
to  take  the  debtor's  property  if  the  debt  was  not 
paid  at  a  certain  time,  and  might  even  sell  him  or 
his  children  into  slavery.^  Alleviating  provisions 
are,  however,  found,  such  as  that  in  taking  a  pledge 
for  a  loan  the  creditor  shall  not  go  into  the  debtor's 
house  to  take  the  pledge,  but  shall  wait  without 
until  the  man  bring  forth  what  he  will  give.  A 
hand-mill  or  an  upper  millstone  shall  not  be  taken, 
and  an  upper  garment  received  as  a  pledge  must  be 
returned  at  night.^ 

That  the  benevolent  interest  of  the  legislators  in 
the  poor  availed  little  against  the  greed  and  rapacity 
of  the  rich  and  powerful,  although  the  provisions  of 
the  law  were  emphasised  by  repetition  in  different 

^  Exod.  xxiii.  25.  The  prohibition  of  usury  here  is  thought  to  be 
a  later  addition.  See  Buhl,  p.  98,  and  Holziuger,  Exodus,  on  the 
passage.  *  Neh.  v.  5,  8  ;  Isa.  1.  1. 

3  Deut.  xxiv.  6,  10,  15  ;  Exod.  xxii.  26. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        35 

codes,  is  evident  from  express  statements  in  the 
writings  of  the  later  prophets.  In  Ezekiel's  portrayal 
of  the  unrighteous  man  appear  traits  that  he  had 
doubtless  observed.  Prominent  among  these  are 
wronging  the  poor  and  needy,  spoiling  by  violence, 
and  not  restoring  the  pledge.  Nehemiah,  in  the 
passages  already  referred  to,  presents  a  vivid  picture 
of  conditions  existing  after  the  exile.  It  would 
appear  that  the  theology  of  the  people,  according 
to  which  the  captivity  w^as  a  judgment  of  Yahweh 
for  their  sins,  had  exerted  little  influence  upon  their 
conduct.  In  the  lamentation  in  Babylon  they  had 
neither  learned  mercy  nor  applied  their  hearts  to 
wisdom.  The  historian  tells  of  "  a  great  cry  of  the 
people  and  of  their  wives  against  their  brethren." 
Some  said,  "  We  are  mortgaging  our  fields  and  our 
vineyards  and  our  houses."  Others  said,  "  We  have 
borrowed  money  for  the  king's  tribute  upon  our 
fields  and  our  vineyards,  .  .  .  and  lo,  we  bring  into 
bondage  our  sons  and  our  daughters  to  be  servants, 
.  .  .  neither  is  it  in  our  power  to  help  it,  for  other 
men  have  our  fields  and  our  vineyards."  Nehemiah 
takes  up  their  cause,  and  charges  the  "  nobles  "  witli 
taking  usury. 

One  of  the  most  radical  provisions  of  the  law 
in  the  interest  of  debtors  is  that  of  the  "  release  " 


36  EICH  AND  POOR 

every  seven  years  enacted  in  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation.  "  And  this  is  the  manner  of  the  release," 
says  the  writer :  "  Every  creditor  shall  release  that 
which  he  hath  lent  unto  his  neighbour ;  he  shall  not 
exact  it  of  his  neighbour  and  his  brother,  because 
Yahweh's  release  hath  been  proclaimed."  Foreigners 
are  not  included  in  this  enactment,^  The  release 
was  that  of  the  entire  debt,  and  did  not  apply  to  the 
interest  only,  as  some  have  maintained.  For  the 
rich  are  warned  (vv.  9,  10)  not  to  have  a  base 
thought  in  their  heart  and  refuse  to  lend  to  the 
poor  man  because  the  seventh  year  is  at  hand,  "  and 
he  cry  unto  Yahweh  against  thee,  and  it  be  a  sin 
unto  thee."  This  exhortation  would  not  be  "  without 
meaning,"  as  Buhl  tliinks,  if  it  related  only  to  the 
loss  of  the  interest,  but  it  would  not  be  likely  to 
appear  in  this  sense  in  a  legislation  in  which  the 
taking  of  interest  on  loans  is  prohibited.^  The 
words  following  this  enactment,  "Howbeit  there 
shall  be  no  poor  with  thee  ^  (for  Yahweh  will  surely 


1  Deut.  XV.  1-3. 

2  A  detailed  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  this  law  may  be  read 
in  Driver,  A  Critical  and  Exeydical  Commentary  on  Deuteronomy, 
1895,  pp.  174-183. 

^  Edward  Tallmadge  Root  in  The  Profit  of  the  Many  endeavours 
to  show  that  '3  d£3n,  rendered  "Howbeit"  in  the  Revised 
Version,  expresses  ^5M?7?o.sr.  But  this  is  a  forced  construction. 
The  meaning  ia  clear  when  the  clause  "if  only  thou  diligently 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        37 

bless  thee,  etc.),  if  only  thou  diligently  hearken  unto 
the  voice  of  Yahweh  thy  God,  to  do  and  observe  all 
this  commandment,"  denote  a  condition  that  no  one 
could  have  regarded  as  other  than  ideal. 

If  the  legislation  itself  was  intended  to  serve  as 
more  than  an  ideal,  if  it  was  expected  that  it  would 
actually  go  into  effect,  it  was  certainly  not  framed 
with  a  wise  foresight  of  future  conditions.  No 
community  engaged  in  extensive  trade  and  business 
enterprises  requiring  credit  could  exist  under  such  a 
law.  Indeed  the  complaints  of  the  prophets  show 
that  this  law  was  in  general  disregarded  as  well  as 
the  other  laws  for  the  relief  of  the  poor. 

After  the  exile  the  people  did  indeed,  under  the 
influence  of  Ezra,  agree  to  abide  by  this  require- 
ment, but  no  sooner  did  the  Jews  begin  to  carry  on 
credit  operations  on  a  large  scale  than  artful  ex- 
pedients were  resorted  to  in  order  to  evade  it.  A 
man,  for  example,  would  refuse  to  lend  money  until 
the  borrower  importuned  him,  and  agreed  to  accept 
it  as  a  present ;  or  it  was  agreed  that  all  debts  were 
excepted  from  this  law  that  were  secured  by  a  pledge ; 
or  Hillel's  expedient  was  resorted  to,  according  to 
which  the  lender  read  before  the  court  a  declaration 

heed,"  etc.,  is  read  as  the  condition  of  the  former.  The  result  in 
view  is  contingent  and  perhaps  altogether  ideal. 


38  KICK  AND  POOR 

in  which  he  reserved  the  right  to  collect  his  debt.^ 
Thus  wealth  had  its  way,  and  proved  its  ancient 
right  to  be  regarded  as  another  name  for  power.^ 

Other  humane  provisions  of  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation  are  worthy  of  note,  such  as  the  permission 
to  eat  grapes  from  a  neighbour's  vineyard  at  pleasure, 
but  not  to  "  put  any  in  any  vessel,"  and  to  pluck  the 
ears  of  his  standing  corn,  but  not  to  reap  any  of  it. 
It  is  required  that  a  hired  servant  who  is  poor  and 
needy  be  not  oppressed,  whether  he  be  a  Hebrew  or 
a  stranger,  and  that  he  be  paid  his  wages  at  the  end 
of  his  day's  work.  A  widow's  raiment  shall  not  be 
taken  as  a  pledge,  but  the  people  shall  remember 
that  they  were  bondmen  in  Egypt.  Since  God 
"redeemed"  them  from  this  bondage,  they  ought 
to  show  a  mercy  to  those  in  distress  like  the  mercy 
of  Yahweh.  Here  we  see  again  the  religious  ground 
of  moral  obligation. 

In  the  connection  of  the  foregoing  is  the  enact- 


1  Buhl,  p.  no. 

2  "  Usury  "  is  interest,  and  it  was  so  regarded  by  the  theologians 
of  the  Church,  who  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century 
opposed  money-lending  as  contrary  to  the  Old  Testament  legisla- 
tion, which  they  thought  to  be  perpetually  binding.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  the  expedients  to  which  they  at  length  resorted 
when  driven  to  reconcile  the  prohibition  of  interest  on  loans  with 
the  necessities  of  trade  and  commercial  enterprise.  See  Andrew 
D.  White's  A  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  loith  Theology, 
1898,  vol.  ii.  pp.  264-287. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        39 

ment  regarding  gleaning,  that  requires  a  sheaf 
forgotten  in  the  harvest  to  be  left :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
go  again  to  fetch  it :  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  for 
the  fatherless,  and  for  the  widow :  that  Yahweh  thy 
God  may  bless  thee  in  all  the  work  of  thy  hands." 
In  like  manner  there  shall  be  no  second  gathering  of 
the  olives  and  grapes.  They  shall  be  left  for  the 
poor.^ 

The  later  Priests'  Code  repeats  these  provisions 
with  the  added  requirement  that  when  the  field  is 
reaped  the  owner  shall  not  "  wholly  reap  the  corners  " 
of  it,  but  that  these  shall  be  left  for  the  poor  and  the 
stranger.^ 

In  the  same  code,  or  in  the  Holiness  Law  included 
in  it,  occurs  the  unique  and  remarkable  enactment 
regarding  the  so-called  Sabbatic  Year.  The  fields 
are  to  be  sown  and  the  vineyards  pruned  and  the 
fruits  gathered  six  years,  but  "  the  seventh  year  shall 
be  a  sabbath  of  solemn  rest  for  the  land,  a  sabbath 
unto  Yahweh."  That  which  grows  of  itself  during 
this  year  shall  not  be  reaped  or  gathered,  but  shall 
be  for  food  for  the  owner,  his  slaves,  his  hired 
servants,  the  stranger,  the  cattle,  and  "  the  beasts 
that  are  in  the  land."     This  law  has  been  regarded 

O 

as  "  a  relic  of  communistic  agriculture,"  a  condition 

^  Deut.  xxiii.  21,  25  ;  xxiv.  19-22.       ^  Lgy_  xix.  10  ;  xxiii.  22. 


40  EICPI  AND  POOR 

of  collective  ownership  of  the  lands  pertaining  to  a 
certain  group  of  individuals,  who  at  certain  periods 
renounce  their  tenure  in  favour  of  the  community.^ 
Thus  the  less  fortunate  members  of  the  society  might 
be  benefited,  according  to  the  words  in  Exodus 
xxiii.  10,  where  the  earliest  sketch  of  the  provision 
appears:  "that  the  poor  of  thy  people  may  eat." 
The  law  in  Leviticus  "  limits  the  rights  of  individual 
ownership  in  the  interest  of  the  community  at  large," 
whatever  its  origin  may  have  been.^ 

The  modifications  that  the  legislation  of  the 
Old  Testament  underwent  in  the  various  stages  of 
its  development  are  illustrated  by  a  comparison  of 
the  form  of  the  enactment  in  question  as  it  appears 
in  the  Priests'  Code  in  Leviticus  with  the  earlier 
and  briefer  sketch  of  it  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
in  Exodus.  The  later  recension  takes  no  notice  of 
the  kindly  reference  to  the  poor  that  stands  in  the 
earlier,  but  its  dominant  interest  is  in  the  Sabbath, 
which,  at  the  time  when  it  was  written,  had  attained 
a  significance  before  unknown ;  so  that,  as  Nowack 
remarks,  "  the  law  is  essentially  nothing  but  the 
consequence  of  the  Sabbath -idea  that  had  thus 
assumed  importance."  ^     It  is  expressly  said  that  the 

^  John  Fenton,  Early  Hebrew  Life,  p.  66  f.     Driver,  uM  supra, 
p.  177.  '-^  Lev.  XXV.  1. 

•^  Die  socialcn  Prohleme  in  Israel,  p.  18. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        41 

year  of  rest  for  the  land  is  "  a  sabbath  unto  Yahweh  "  ; 
and  to  remove  the  natural  apprehension  of  the  people 
that  there  would  be  a  dearth  of  food  in  this  year  and 
the  following,  an  assurance  of  supernatural  inter- 
vention is  given  to  the  effect  that  Yahweh  will 
command  His  blessing  upon  the  sixth  year,  and  the 
land  shall  bear  fruit  for  three  years.-^  We  have,  of 
course,  no  evidence  that  this  promise  was  fulfilled. 

This  assumed  necessity  of  a  miracle  is  a  tacit 
acknowledgment  that  the  law  was,  in  fact,  regarded 
as  impracticable.  To  say  nothing  of  the  perils  of 
starvation  that  the  divine  intervention  might  obviate, 
the  idleness  of  an  entire  people  during  the  period  of 
"rest"  must  without  a  miracle  of  grace  have  per- 
nicious moral  consequences.  There  is  some  ground, 
accordingly,  for  the  contention  that  this  legislation 
had  only  an  ideal  significance  connected  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Sabbath.^  We  have  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  the  law  in  the  period  before  the 
exile,  but  an  implication  that  it  was  not  observed  is 
found  in  two  passages.^  After  the  return  from  the 
exile  the  people,  according  to  Nehemiah,  solemnly 


^  Lev.  XXV.  21. 

'•^  Baur  in  the  Tiihingen  Zeitschrift,  1832,  pp.  142, 167,  supported 
by  Ewald,  Oehler,  and  Keil.  See  art.  "  Sabbatjahr  "  in  Schenkel's 
Bihel- Lexicon,  v.  p.  126  f. 

^  Lev.  xxvi.  34  ;  2  Cliron.  xxxvi.  21.     Cf.  Nowack,  uhi  supra. 


42  EICH  AND  POOR 

"promised"  to  "forego  the  seventh  year  and  the 
exaction  of  every  debt " ;  and  its  observance  is 
recorded  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  with  disastrous 
consequences  in  the  failure  of  supplies  to  a  besieged 
city,  and  the  consequent  surrender  of  the  same.^ 

Another  provision  of  the  Priests'  Code,  which 
appears  to  be  explicable  only  as  an  ideal  that 
originated  in  a  sentiment  of  humanity  and  a  desire 
to  abolish  in  a  degree  the  distressing  conditions  of 
poverty,  debt,  and  slavery,  is  the  institution  of  the 
Year  of  Jubilee.  After  "seven  sabbaths  of  years" 
the  jubilee  shall  be  proclaimed,  and  in  the  fiftieth 
year  there  shall  be  no  sowing  and  no  gathering  of 
products.  At  this  time  every  man  "  shall  return  to 
his  possession."  In  fact,  permanent  ownership  is 
annulled.  A  man  who  has  sold  his  land  may  buy  it 
back  at  any  time  during  the  period  of  forty-nine 
years,  and  if  he  is  unable  to  do  this,  it  shall  revert 
to  him  in  the  year  of  jubilee.  The  price  at  any 
time  is  governed  by  the  nearness  or  remoteness  of 
the  great  year  of  release.  What  has  really  been  sold 
is  "  the  number  of  the  crops."  The  land  must  not 
be  sold  "  in  perpetuity,"  for  it  belongs  to  Yahweh,  and 
the  people  are  strangers  and  sojourners  with  Him.^ 

^  1  Mace.  vi.  49.     Cf.  Josephus,  Antiq.  xiii.  8  ;  xiv.  6. 
'■'  Lev.  XXV.  8  ff. 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        43 

Humane  treatment  of  the  poor  is  especially 
enjoined  in  this  law,  and  the  earlier  commandments 
regarding  slavery  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and 
Deuteronomy  are  greatly  modified.  "  If  thy  brother 
be  waxen  poor,  and  his  hand  fail  with  thee,  then 
thou  shalt  uphold  him  ;  as  a  stranger  and  a  sojourner 
shall  he  live  with  thee.  Take  no  usury  of  him  or 
increase,  but  fear  thy  God."  If  a  poor  man  sell 
himself  as  a  slave,  he  shall  not  be  "  made  to  serve  as 
a  bond-servant,"  he  shall  be  "as  a  hired  servant" 
until  the  year  of  jubilee,  when  he  shall  be  free,  he 
and  his  children.  "  For  they  are  my  servants  whom 
I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  They 
are  neither  to  be  sold  as  bondmen  nor  "  ruled  over 
with  rigour." 

No  account  is  here  taken  of  the  law  that  sanctions 
the  holding  of  Hebrews  as  slaves,  and  the  other 
provision  is  ignored  that  required  the  release  of  a 
slave  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  year  of  service,  and  his 
retention  "  for  ever  "  if  he  did  not  then  go.  The  only 
slaves  that  the  people  are  permitted  to  have  are 
such  as  they  may  buy  of  "  the  nations  that  are  round 
about "  them  and  the  children  of  the  strangers  that 
sojourn  among  them,  whom  "  they  have  begotten  in 
the  land."  The  purely  religious  ground  of  this 
legislation  is  evident.     There  is  no  "  sociology  "  here. 


44  RICH  AND  POOR 

The  land  belongs  to  Yahweh,  and  accordingly  all 
His  people  are  to  have  equal  rights  in  it.  The 
people  are  His  servants,  and  hence  must  not  be  held 
as  slaves  of  men.  Did  He  not  bring  His  people  out 
of  Egyptian  bondage,  and  should  they  be  sold  again 
into  slavery  ? 

That  this  law  ever  went  into  effect  is  extremely 
doubtful.  One  can  see  at  a  glance  that  it  could  not 
be  carried  out  in  a  time  when  property  was  con- 
siderably diversified  and  among  a  people  engaged  in 
trade  and  commerce.  Even  in  an  agricultural  period, 
when  the  possessions  of  the  people  were  chiefly  in 
land,  it  must  have  shown  itself  impracticable.  The 
requirement  that  every  man  should  return  to  his 
possessions  in  the  year  of  jubilee  implies  that  every 
one  had  possessions  that  he  might  claim — a  most 
improbable  supposition  with  reference  to  all  the  poor, 
the  infirm,  and  the  slaves.  What  were  the  conditions 
forty-nine  years  before  that  could  at  any  jubilee- 
period  be  reproduced  ?  Is  any  jubilee-period  suppos- 
able  at  the  beginning  of  which  all  the  people  could 
have  been  in  conditions  to  which  a  return  would  be 
desirable  because  beneficial  ? 

The  Jewish  tradition,  in  fact,  concedes  that  this 
law  was  never  observed — a  fact  that  is  regarded  as 
surprising,  because  after  the  time  of  Ezra  the  law 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        45 

in  general  was  kept  with  great  assiduity.  Nowack 
accordingly  remarks  that  "  the  best  will  was  not  in 
a  situation  to  carry  out  such  a  law,  which  did  not 
grow  out  of  historical  relations,  but  was  artificially 
formed  from  fixed  and  accepted  premises."  There  is 
no  evidence  of  its  existence  before  the  exile.  The 
failure  to  observe  it  is  never  charged  against  the 
people  by  the  prophets  in  their  arraignment  of  them 
for  their  theocratic  and  ethical  shortcomings,  although 
Jeremiah  threatens  the  most  frightful  judgments 
upon  the  people  of  his  time,  because,  after  having 
liberated  their  slaves  during  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  king  of  Babylon,  they  subjected  them  again 
to  bondage  on  a  temporary  cessation  of  hostilities. 
Here  he  refers  to  the  law  of  release,  at  the  end  of  the 
sixtli  year,  changing  it  so  as  to  read,  "  at  the  end  of 
seven  years."  But  neither  here  nor  in  the  reference 
to  "  a  year  of  liberty  "  in  Ezekiel  is  there  a  definite 
indication  of  an  acquaintance  with  the  jubilee- 
legislation.^ 

The  law  has,  however,  an  historical-ethical  interest 
as  one  of  the  many  examples  throughout  the  Old 
Testament  of  the  indomitable,  although,  alas !  in- 
effectual, endeavour  of  the  best  minds  of  the  Hebrew 

*  Jer.  xxxiv.  14  tl'.  ;  Ezek.  xlvi.  17.     See  Bertholet,  Das  Buck 
ffezekiel,  p.  239, 


46  KICH  AND  POOE 

race  to  realise,  through  admonition,  warning,  or 
legislation  their  fine  ideals  of  humanity,  and  to 
rescue  the  poor,  the  unfortunate,  and  the  slaves 
from  the  clutches  of  heartless  Greed.  It  matters 
little  whether  such  a  sketch  of  legislation  was 
seriously  intended  to  go  into  effect,  or  is  to  be 
regarded  as  an  ideal  conception,  the  embodiment  of 
the  humane  social  aspirations  of  some  great-hearted 
priest  who,  bewailing  the  wretchedness  of  the  poor  of 
his  people,  wrote  out  his  dream  of  a  golden  age,  in 
which  the  mercy  of  Yahweh,  the  friend  of  the  father- 
less and  the  widow,  should  find  expression  in  the 
triumph  of  humanity,  long  scorned  and  set  at  naught 
by  the  mighty  in  the  land. 

Although  the  humanitarian  social  strivings  of 
Israel,  expressed  in  the  ideals  of  prophets  and  poets, 
failed  of  practical  realisation  in  the  history  of  the 
people,  they  proceeded  from  principles  of  universal 
interest  and  worth.  The  idea  of  grounding  the 
individual  life  and  the  national  polity  in  the  divine 
righteousness  and  tender  mercy  commends  itself  to 
the  social  philosophy  of  all  ages  and  peoples.  Israel 
disregarded  the  admonitions  that  were  founded  upon 
this  religious  principle,  and  suffered  unspeakably. 
No  system  of  social  life  can  dispense  with  justice 
and  love ;  and  in  no  way  can  these  more  effectually 


CONDITIONS  AND  TEACHINGS        47 

be  made  the  springs  of  conduct  in  men  than  by  the 
cultivation  of  personal  piety  toward  God  regarded 
as  the  supreme  embodiment  of  them. 

If  the  failure  of  the  ideals  of  humanity  and 
charity  in  Israel  to  control  the  evil  passions  of  men, 
to  check  the  hot  and  heartless  race  for  wealth,  and  to 
inspire  consideration  for  the  weak  and  poor,  be 
thought  to  ground  a  pessimistic  conclusion  as  to  the 
efi&cacy  of  the  religious  sanction  and  the  response  of 
human  nature  to  it,  then  reason  may  be  found  for  a 
cheerful  optimism  in  the  reflection  that  it  is  not 
given  to  the  preaching  of  prophets,  the  inspired  song 
of  poets,  and  the  inditing  of  wisdom-apothegms  to 
effect  the  regeneration  of  mankind,  but  that  this 
consummation  must  wait  for  the  advent  of  a  great 
Personality  appointed  to  be  an  example  and  an 
inspiration — a  Son  of  Man,  filled  with  piety  toward 
God  and  love  for  men. 


CHAPTER    II 


MATTHEW   AND   LUKE 


The  consideration  of  the  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  social  problem  arising 
from  wealth  and  poverty  or  the  relation  of  the  rich 
and  the  poor  in  society,  to  which  the  foregoing 
chapter  furnishes,  it  is  hoped,  an  interesting  and 
instructive  introduction,  leads  us  in  the  beginning  to 
the  Gospels,  composing  the  first  grand  division  of 
the  Christian  canon.  We  begin  with  them,  not 
because  they  are  the  earliest  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  for  many  of  the  Epistles  antedate  them, 
but  rather  because  they  record  the  words,  portray 
the  personality,  and  show  the  attitude  toward  our 
subject,  of  the  great  Teacher  from  whom  proceeded 
the  impulse  and  the  inspiration  of  all  the  writers 
that  we  shall  have  to  consider. 

Since  the  unique  point  of  view  and  purpose  of  the 
author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  diverted  his  attention 

48 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  49 

from  the  matters  that  are  related  to  our  inquiry,  his 
work  calls  for  very  little  consideration  in  the  present 
discussion.  So  far  as  the  Gospels  are  concerned, 
then,  our  attention  will  be  chiefly  given  to  the  so- 
called  synoptics  or  the  first  three.  Of  these,  more- 
over, for  the  reason  that  Mark  has  very  little 
material  for  us  that  is  not  contained  in  the  other 
two,  we  shall  be  occupied  in  the  main  with  the  first 
and  third,  that  "according  to  Matthew"  and  that 
"  according  to  Luke." 

At  the  present  stage  in  the  progress  of  biblical 
investigation  no  scholar  who  well  knows  his  ground 
undertakes  to  derive  a  doctrine  from  the  Gospels 
without  establishing  it  upon  conclusions  carefully 
considered  or  resting  upon  the  general  consensus  of 
the  learned  regarding  the  character  and  composition 
of  these  records.  The  importance  of  this  procedure 
is  manifest  when  we  consider  the  relation  of  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  sources  to  the  validity  of  the 
teaching  that  is  derived  from  them.  If  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  is  in  question,  an  inquiry  is  evidently  in- 
dispensable into  the  relation  of  the  writers  of  the 
Gospels  to  him,  their  sources  and  their  attitude 
toward  them.  The  limits  within  which  it  has  been 
determined  to  write  this  monograph  do  not  admit  of 
our   entering    into   a   technical    discussion   of    the 

4 


50  EICH  AND  POOR 

composition  and  relation  to  one  another  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  or  the  so-called  synoptic  problem. 
We  must,  then,  content  ourselves  with  stating  as 
simply  and  clearly  as  possible,  so  as  not  to  weary 
the  reader,  some  general  facts  and  conclusions,  for 
the  grounds  of  which  reference  may  be  made  to 
scientific  wgrks  upon  the  subject. 

It  is  now  generally  maintained  by  those  best 
qualified  to  judge  of  the  matter  that  the  first  three 
canonical  Gospels  were  largely  composed  from 
written  sources.  Mark  is  believed  to  be  the  oldest 
of  these,  and  to  have  been  one  of  the  sources  of  the 
other  two.  Yet  it  does  not  have  the  appearance  of 
an  independent  work,  such  as  the  traditional 
"  interpreter  of  Peter  "  might  have  written  from  his 
recollections  of  the  preaching  of  that  apostle. 
Eather  does  it  contain  indications  of  dependence 
upon  more  or  less  fragmentary  writings,  intended  to 
set  forth  the  acts  and  words  of  Jesus  as  they  had 
been  handed  down  in  the  tradition  of  his  followers.^ 
The  writer's  peculiar  style,  his  fondness  for  em- 
bellishment and  for  picturesque  details,  reveals  his 


^  The  repetition  of  accounts  with  variations  indicates  a  some- 
what negligent  use  of  sources.     Cf.  Bacon,  Introd.  to  the  New  Test. 

1900,  p.  207.     The  long  discourse  in  chap.  xiii.  must  have  been 
derived   from  a  written  source.     Cf.  Jiilicher,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  T. 

1901,  pp.  254  f. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  51 

hand,  and  distinguishes  his  contributions  from  the 
common  material  of  tlie  tradition. 

As   to   the   Gospel   according   to   Matthew,   the 
general  consensus  of  expert  opinion  pronounces  it  a 
composite  work,  written  in  dependence  upon  sources, 
two  of  which  may  be  said  to  be  pretty  well  known. 
One  of  these  was  the  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  the 
order  of  events  in  which  the  writer  substantially 
adopted  together  with  the  most  of  its  material.     The 
other  was  a  collection  of  the  sayings  (Xoyia)  of  Jesus, 
perhaps   the  one  mentioned   by  Papias  about   the 
middle  of  the  second  century  as  a  writing  in  Aramaic 
by  the  apostle  Matthew.     We  know  that  translations 
of  this  existed,  and  the  author  of  our  first  Gospel, 
who  wrote  the  work  in  Greek,  doubtless  had  one  of 
the  recensions  of  it  in  that  language,  and  used  it  as 
suited  his  somewhat  fanciful  idea  of  the  grouping 
of  events  and  discourses.     It   is    necessary  also  to 
assume    other   sources    that    cannot    be   definitely 
determined,  together  with  the  current  oral  tradition, 
in  order  to  account  for  all  the  phenomena  of  this 
record.^ 

^  See  Weizsacker,  Die  evnngelischc  GescJdchte,  1864,  pp.  104  ff.  ; 
Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum,  1887  ;  Cone,  Gosiiel-Criticism  and 
Historical  Christianity,  1891,  pp.  118-166,  197-209  ;  Holtzraann, 
Einleit.  in  das  N.  T.  2te  Aufl.  pp.  347  ff. ;  Bacon  and  Jiilicher, 
as  above;  Wernlc,  Die  synopt.  Fragc,  1899;  "The  Synoptic 
Question,"  by  the  writer,  in  The  New  World  for  September  1900. 


52  KICK  AND  POOE 

We  are  not  left  to  conjecture  regarding  the  com- 
position of  our  third  Gospel,  which  bears  the 
traditional  designation,  "according  to  Luke."  The 
writer  himself  takes  us  frankly  into  his  confidence 
when  he  informs  us  in  his  introduction  of  his 
acquaintance  with  the  writings  of  "  many  "  who  had 
"  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  "  such  as  he 
was  about  to  undertake  with  the  manifest  conviction 
that  he  could  write  a  better  Gospel  than  any  one  of 
these — at  least  one  more  "  in  order  "  (/ca^e^?}?),  since 
by  means  of  the  material  at  his  disposal  he  had 
"  traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  (aKpi/So)^) 
from  the  first."  Accordingly,  he  assures  the  friend 
to  whom  he  dedicates  his  work  that  he  purposes  to 
enable  the  reader  to  attain  "  certainty  "  (aa<^d\eiav) 
respecting  the  matters  in  which  the  catechumens  of 
the  time  were  instructed. 

At  the  present  stage  of  the  investigation  of  the 
origin  of  the  Gospels  one  hazards  nothing  in  assuming 
that  two  of  the  sources  of  this  narrative  were  the 
same  that  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  first  Gospel — Mark 
in  substantially  its  present  form  and  a  collection  of 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  in  one  of  its  Greek  recensions. 
While  Matthew  is  also  included  by  scholars  whose 
opinion  is  entitled  to  the  highest  consideration,  the 
differences  between  the  two  render  a  dependence  of 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  53 

the  third  upon  the  first  very  doubtful,  apart  from  the 
reasons  that  may  be  urged  for  regarding  the  latter 
Gospel  as  the  latest  of  the  three.  Other  sources  that 
are  in  the  nature  of  the  case  indeterminable  must  be 
assumed  in  order  to  account  for  the  considerable 
material  that  Luke  has  over  Mark,  in  which  are 
included  the  parables  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  Eich 
Man  and  Lazarus,  and  the  Good  Samaritan.  We 
may,  however,  well  leave  them  undetermined,  and 
content  ourselves  with  the  writer's  vague  mention  of 
them  as  the  productions  of  the  "  many "  who  had 
undertaken  to  write  evangelic  narratives. 

Of  greater  importance,  moreover,  than  the  fact 
that  our  Gospels  were  composed  from  sources  are  the 
variations  in  the  narratives  as  they  lie  before  us.  In 
respect  to  these  it  is  difficult  to  determine  whether 
they  are  due  to  differences  in  the  sources  themselves 
or  to  varying  points  of  view  and  aims  of  the  writers 
of  the  Gospels.  The  writer  of  Luke  appears  to  have 
known  nothing  of  the  flight  into  Egypt,  and  leaves 
no  place  for  it  in  his  narrative.  Mark  makes  Jesus 
ask  the  man  who  addressed  him  as  "  good  Master," 
"  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ? "  In  Matthew  the 
question  is  changed  to  "  Why  askest  thou  me 
concerning   that  which  is  good  ? "  ^     The  different 

1  Mark  x.  17,  18  ;  Matt.  xix.  17. 


54  KICH  AND  POOR 

versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Matthew  and  Luke 
indicate  different  sources  or  changes  made  by  one  or 
both  evangelists.-^  The  two  versions  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  must  not  only  have  come  from  two 
unlike  sources,  but  must  also  have  received  their 
respective  forms  according  to  altogether  different 
conceptions  and  purposes  of  the  two  writers." 
Matthew's  account  of  a  meeting  of  Jesus  with  the 
eleven  disciples  in  Galilee  after  the  resurrection  is 
not  recognised  in  Luke,  where  it  is  recorded  that  on 
the  day  of  the  resurrection  Jesus  commanded  them 
to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  until  "  endued  with  power 
from  on  high,"  then  led  them  out  to  Bethany,  and 
was  "  carried  up  into  heaven."  ^  The  reconciliation 
of  these  differences  cannot  be  compassed  by  exegesis, 
and  every  explanation  of  their  origin  must  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  be  conjectural.  The  only  course, 
then,  that  is  open  to  the  student  of  the  teachings  of 
the  Gospels  is  to  accept  them  as  they  stand  and 
admit  into  his  results  such  modifications  as  legitimate 
inferences  from  these  deviations  appear  to  require. 
He  must  prudently  take  his  course  between  Scylla 
and  Charybdis — between  the  perils  involved  in  the 
dogmatic  assertions  that  he  can  know  infallibly  what 

1  Matt.  vi.  9  fr. ;  Luke  xi.  2  ff. 

2  Matt,  v.-vii.  ;  Liikc  vi.  20-49. 

^  Matt,  xxviii.  lU  (F.  ;  Liiko  xxiv.  15-53. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  55 

is  taught,  and  that  the  records  are  in  such  hopeless 
imperfection  and  contradiction  that  their  essential 
teaching  cannot  be  ascertained. 

Another  feature  of  the  Gospels  of  special  import- 
ance to  the  student  who  endeavours  to  derive  a 
teaching  from  them  concerns  their  relation  to  the 
circle  of  readers  that  their  authors  had  in  view  and 
to  the  problems  of  primitive  Christianity.  In 
particular  should  account  be  taken  of  the  way  in 
which  the  narratives  and  reports  of  sayings  are 
influenced  by  the  Jewish-Christian  and  gentile- 
Christian  controversies,  due  to  the  original  and 
compelling  personality  of  the  greatest  of  the  apostles. 
No  doubt  the  theory  of  a  "  tendency  "  in  the  Gospels 
in  a  Pauline  or  an  anti-Pauline  direction  has  been 
overdone ;  but  after  abstraction  has  been  made  of  all 
excesses,  there  remain  to  the  sober  critical  judgment 
some  facts  deserving  consideration. 

As  to  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthew  in  this 
relation,  it  is  well  known  that  as  early  as  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century  Irenteus  found  in  it 
indications  of  a  Jewish-Christian  character  and 
purpose.  He  regarded  it  as  written  in  order  to 
furnish  to  the  Christians  of  the  circumcision  proof 
that  Jesus  was  the  expected  Messiah  of  their  people. 
Accordingly,  it  is  more  than  any  other  of  the  Gospels 


56  EICH  AND  POOE 

distinguished  by  citations  from  the  Old  Testament 
in  supposed  and  intended  proof  of  its  implied  thesis 
that  the  principal  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  are 
fulfilments  of  Hebrew  prophecy.  Jesus  comes  out  of 
Egypt  when  a  young  child  in  accordance  with  a 
prophetic  word,  and  when  he  speaks  in  parables  it  is 
"  that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet."  -^  There  is  need  neither  to  cite  the  numerous 
examples  illustrating  this  interest  of  the  writer  nor 
to  dwell  upon  the  defects  of  his  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament.  His  method  of  dealing  with  the 
Jewish  sacred  writings  was  that  of  his  time,  and 
precisely  for  this  reason  it  was  effective  for  his 
purpose. 

A  partisan  Jewish- Christian  interest  is  distinctly 
represented  in  this  Gospel.  This  feature  apparently 
belongs  to  the  writer's  oldest  source — the  collection  of 
sayings,  and  denotes  a  recognition  of  the  permanent 
validity  of  the  Jewish  law  and  a  limitation  of  Jesus' 
mission  to  the  Jews.  The  whole  law  is  to  be  literally 
fulfilled,  and  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  consists  in  doing  and  teaching  its  command- 
ments. The  scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  are  the 
representatives  of  Moses,  furnish  in  their  teachings 
an    inviolable   authority   for    the   conduct    of    life. 

'  Matt.  ii.  15  :  .xiv.  35. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  57 

Eighteousness  is  of  "  works  "  rather  than  by  "  faith." 
The  twelve  tribes  will  be  recognised  in  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  the  twelve  apostles  will  be  their  judges. 
The  gentiles  are  spoken  of  in  a  disparaging  and  con- 
temptuous tone.  The  twelve  are  forbidden  to  extend 
their  mission  beyond  the  cities  of  Israel  and  in 
particular  to  visit  the  Samaritans.  The  kingdom  of 
God  will  have  come  before  they  can  have  preached 
in  all  the  Jewish  land.  Directions  are  given  re- 
garding sacrifices  and  the  temple  and  altars,  as  if 
these  were  of  permanent  validity  and  importance  to 
the  followers  of  Jesus.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Gospel  contains  ex- 
pressions of  decided  hostility  to  the  Jews.  The 
kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  them,  and 
given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof. 
Their  overthrow  is  predicted.  They  are  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  death  of  Jesus.  Their  boasting 
that  Abraham  is  their  father  is  declared  to  be  futile. 
Greater  faith  than  theirs  is  found  among  the  gentiles. 
They  shall  be  shut  out  of  the  kingdom  in  outer 
darkness,  while  in  the  name  of  Jesus  the  gentiles 
shall  hope.  In  the  Messianic  consummation  the 
publicans  and    harlots  will    have    precedence   over 

»  Matt.  V.  17-19,  23,  24,  47 ;  vii.  6,  19  ff. ;  x.  5,  6  ;  xii.  33  ;  xv. 
24  ;  xviii.  17  ;  xix.  17,  28  ;  xxiii.  3,  18-20. 


58  EICH  AND  POOE 

them.  The  universal  destination  of  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  is,  moreover,  implied  in  the  injunction  to  the 
apostles  to  proclaim  it  to  "  all  nations."  ^  It  is  remote 
from  our  present  purpose  to  inquire  whether  or  no 
the  former  series  of  Jewish- Christian  sayings  repre- 
sents the  oldest  tradition,  and  the  latter  series  of 
gentile- Christian  content  should  be  credited  to  the 
evangelist,  or  whether  these  antithetic  tendencies 
find  their  true  explanation  in  the  assumption  of  two 
authors,  while  a  third  reviser  added  the  words  that 
recognise  the  Church  already  in  process  of  formation.^ 
It  is  sufficient,  as  indicating  the  general  character  of 
the  Gospel  as  a  document  from  which  a  teaching  is 
to  be  derived,  to  call  attention  to  these  contrasted 
representations  without  undertaking  the  fruitless 
task  of  reconciling  them.  The  high  repute  of  this 
great  work  among  the  ancients  and  moderns  is  a 
tribute  to  the  catholic  spirit  in  which,  without 
consciously  belittling  or  exalting  either  Peter  or 
Paul,  it  represents  the  dominant  ideas  and  tendencies, 
the  conflicts  and  accords,  of  the  primitive  Church. 
As  to  the  third  Gospel,  it  was  not  without  reasons 

^  Matt.  iii.  9  ;  viii.  10-12 ;  xii.  21  ;  ixi.  28-32,  43  ;  xxii.  7  ; 
xxvii.  24,  25  ;  xxviii.  19.  See  Weizsiicker,  Die  evangel.  Gesch.  pp. 
195-200  ;  Jiilicher,  Einldt.  pp.  243-247  ;  Iloltzmann,  Einleit.  pp. 
389  ff.  ;  Keim,  Gesch.  Jesu  von  Nazara,  i.  pp.  47-63  ;  Renan,  Les 
l^vancjiles,  pp.  94  ff. 

2  Matt.  xvi.  IS  ;  xviii.  17. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  59 

apparent  in  its  contents  and  general  character  that 
IreuLcus,     Tertullian,    and     Eusebius    among     the 
ancients  regarded  it  as  distinctively  the  Gospel  of  the 
gentile-Christian  or  Pauline  believers  in  the  early 
Church.     In  the  story  of  the  infancy,  Simeon,  speak- 
ing by  the  Holy  Spirit,  declares  that  in  the  young 
child  he  sees  the  salvation  of  God,  "  prepared  before 
the  face  of  all  peoples,  a  light  for  revelation  to  the 
gentiles."     The  mission  of  the  Seventy  denotes  the 
evangelisation  of  the  nations  by  the   authority  of 
Jesus,  who  gives  them  instructions  similar  to  those 
given  to  the  twelve   apostles.      Jesus   is   made   to 
declare  to  the  Jews  that  they  have  no  claim  upon 
the  kingdom  of  God  because  he  belonged  to  their 
nation     and    "  taught    in    their  streets."      It   is   a 
Samaritan  who  by  his  benevolence  shames  the  Jewish 
dignitaries,  and  a  Samaritan  leper  is   distinguished 
for  his  gratitude.     The  publican  who  casts  himself  in 
faith   upon  the  divine  mercy  is   "justified"   rather 
than  the  Pharisee  who  boasts  of  his  "works."     A 
ministry  to  the  gentiles  is  declared  by  Jesus  himself 
at   Nazareth  to  be   the  true  fulfilment  of  Isaiah's 
prophecy,  which  is  interpreted  as  Messianic.      The 
account  of  the  indignation  of  the   people   at   this 
application  of  the  stories  of  Elijah  and  Elisha  em- 
phasises the  writer's  purpose.     If  the  Pauline  gospel 


60  EICH  AND  POOR 

of  salvation  by  faith  is  not  distinctively  supported, 
the  gospel  of  works  is  certainly  not  commended,  but 
is  rather  belittled  in  the  teaching  that  he  who  keeps 
the  commandments  does  nothing  worthy  of  praise, 
and  is,  in  fact,  "an  unprofitable  servant."  The 
legendary  account  of  the  call  of  Peter  has  undoubtedly 
an  allegorical  tendency  toward  an  establishment  of 
the  mission  to  the  gentiles  on  the  authority  of 
Jesus.  In  the  parable  of  the  Supper  those  com- 
pelled to  come  in  from  the  highways  and  hedges 
represent  the  gentiles.  To  these  evidences  must  be 
added  the  omission  in  Luke  of  several  distinctly 
Jewish  features  in  Matthew  as  well  as  a  few  instances 
of  the  influence  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.^ 

The  foregoing  consideration  of  the  two  Gospels 
that  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with,  which  shows 
their  relation  with  respect  to  varying  points  of  view 
and  diversified  material,  due  either  to  their  sources  or 
to  the  different  purposes  of  their  authors,  will  not,  it 
is  hoped,  be  found  too  prolix  to  serve  as  an  intro- 
duction to  a  study  of  them  with  reference  to  their 
attitude  toward  the  social  question  under  con- 
sideration.    In  the  material   common   to   Matthew 

'  Luke  ii.  31  f.  ;  iv.  16-30  ;  v.  Ml  ;  x.  1-16,  25-37  ;  xiii.  26  ; 
xiv.  15-24;  xvii.  10-16;  xxiii.  10-14.  See  J.Weiss  in  Meyer's 
Commentar,  i.  2,  1892,  on  the  passages,  and  Schmiedel,  art. 
"  Gospels  "  in  Cheyne  and  Black's  Ency.  Biblica,  ii. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  61 

and  Luke  the  relation  of  the  two,  as  has  been 
frequently  pointed  out,  is  that  of  an  intensification  by 
the  latter  in  the  interest  of  the  poor  and  against  the 
rich.  Not  to  dwell  upon  such  unimportant  matters 
as  "sell  that  thou  hast"  (^TrcoXrjaov  aov  ra  vnrdp- 
'^ovra)  in  Matthew,  and  "  sell  all  thou  hast "  {iravTa 
ocra  e%ei?  7r(o\r]aov\  in  Luke,  attention  should  be 
called  to  such  more  radical  modifications  of  the 
traditions  of  Jesus'  words  as  are  presented  in  the 
report  in  Luke  of  the  Sermon  on  tlie  Mount,  where 
"  poor "  stands  for  Matthew's  "  poor  in  spirit,"  and 
where  to  the  few  beatitudes  given  are  added  "  woes  " 
pronounced  upon  the  rich  without  qualification  as  to 
their  character  or  the  use  made  of  their  riches,  upon 
those  that  are  "  full,"  and  those  that  "  laugh,"  while 
they  that  "  hunger  "  and  "  weep  "  receive  an  uncon- 
ditional beatitude.^ 

In  the  connection  in  which  Matthew  reports  the 
injunction  about  laying  up  treasure  in  heaven,  Luke 
adds  by  way  of  transition  the  commandment 
apparently  addressed  to  all  the  followers  of  Jesus  : 
"  Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms."  Thus  they  will 
make  for  themselves  purses  that  never  wear  out  and 
treasures  in  heaven  that  fail  not,  since  their  alms- 
giving will  be  eternally  rewarded  in  the  kingdom  of 

1  Luke  vi.  19-25  ;  xviii.  22. 


62  KICH  AND  POOE 

God.  Matthew's  "  Give  to  him  that  asketh  thee,  and 
from  him  that  would  borrow  of  thee  turn  not  thou 
away,"  is  intensified  in  Luke  so  as  to  read  :  "  Give  to 
every  one  that  asketh  thee,  and  of  him  that  taketh 
away  thy  goods  ask  them  not  again."  The  special 
requirement  to  sell  his  goods  and  give  to  the  poor 
imposed  upon  an  individual  seeker  after  eternal 
life  in  Matthew,  is  made  general  in  Luke  in  a 
different  connection :  "  So  therefore  whosoever  he 
be  of  you  that  renounceth  not  all  that  he  hath,  he 
cannot  be  my  disciple."  ^ 

Not  a  little  of  the  material  in  Luke  that  is  not 
contained  in  Matthew  is  of  special  interest  relative 
to  the  social  point  of  view  that  prevails  in  that 
Gospel.  The  unique  social  tendency  of  these  sections, 
the  marked  colouring  of  interest  in  the  poor  and 
opposition  to  the  rich  that  distinguishes  them  from  all 
other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  Epistle 
that  bears  the  name  of  James,  can  most  probably  be 
explained  by  the  assumption  of  a  source  that  the 
author  of  this  Gospel  alone  of  the  synoptic  writers 
had  before  him.  The  questions  need  not  here  be 
discussed  whether  the  decided  tendency  in  question 
should  be  ascribed  to  the  writer  or  to  his  source,  and 
whether  the  source  was  of  Ebionitic  origin,  or  simply 

1  Luke  vi.  30  ;  xii.  33  ;  xiv.  33. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  63 

represented  sentiments  prevalent  among  all  classes 
of  primitive  Christians.^  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
in  the  Gospel  an  ascetic  inclination  is  apparent — 
a  view  of  life  to  which  poverty  appears  as  an  ideal  of 
perfection  and  the  giving  of  alms  as  a  virtue.  This 
peculiar  character  of  the  book  is  more  likely  correctly 
to  represent  the  teaching  of  Jesus  if  it  be  attributed 
to  a  source  than  if  it  be  charged  to  the  writer.  In 
the  latter  case  it  would  be  purely  arbitrary  and 
subjective,  while  in  the  former  it  would  have  the 
objective  quality  of  depending  upon  a  tradition  of 
Jesus'  teaching  more  or  less  trustworthy.^ 

In  the  stories  of  the  infancy  in  Luke,  which  are 
so  different  in  form  and  contents  from  those  in 
Matthew  as  to  indicate  a  separate  source,  the  lowly 
conditions  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  are  significant.  The 
hymn  ascribed  to  Mary,  which  was  evidently  com- 
posed from  reminiscences  of  the  Psalm  of  Solomon, 
of  1  Samuel  ii.,  and  various  other  Old  Testament 
passages,  contains  the  refrain  that  sounds  throughout 


^  See  Colin  Campbell,  Critical  Essays  on  Luke,  1891 ;  Weizsacker, 
J.  Weiss,  Jiilicher,  Renan,  as  above,  and  Holtzmann,  Handcom- 
vientar,  on  Luke. 

^  Rogge  contends  for  the  former  supposition,  Der  irdische  Bcsitz 
im  neuen  Testament,  1897,  p.  13.  So  also  J.  AVeiss  in  Meyer's 
Commentar,  i.  2,  p.  282,  and  Feine,  Eine  vorkan.  Ueberlieferung  dcs 
Lukas,  1891.  liuta  tradition  is  not  authenticated  beyond  question 
by  being  referred  to  a  "  source." 


64  EICH  AND  POOR 

the  entire  Gospel,  the  note  of  sympathy  with  the 
poor  and  lowly — the  exaltation  of  those  of  low  degree, 
the  filling  of  the  hungry  "  with  good  things,"  and  the 
sending  of  the  rich  "empty  away."  Jesus  himself 
was  always  poor,  and  depended  for  his  living  upon 
the  gifts  of  his  friends.  Antipathy  to  the  rich  is 
plainly  the  note  of  the  parable  concerning  the  man 
who,  contemplating  the  abundant  products  of  his 
lands,  says  to  his  soul,  "  Soul,  thou  hast  much  goods 
laid  up  for  many  years ;  take  thine  ease,  eat,  drink, 
and  be  merry."  The  divine  judgment  declares  him 
to  be  a  "  fool,"  because  he  must  die,  and  leave  his 
possessions,  to  whom  he  knows  not.  The  direction 
is  Riven  to  a  "  ruler  of  the  Pharisees  "  that  when  he 
makes  a  feast  he  should  not  invite  his  friends  or 
kinsmen  or  rich  neighbours,  lest  they  recompense 
him  by  inviting  him  in  return,  but  the  poor,  the 
maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind,  because  they  cannot 
recompense  him.  He  will  be  rewarded,  however,  "in 
the  resurrection  of  the  just."  Thus  kindness  to  the 
poor  is  recognised  as  a  virtue  that  will  secure  eternal 
life  in  the  Messianic  kingdom.^ 

A  harsh  characterisation  of  wealth  as  partaking 
of  unrighteousness  ("  the  mammon  of  unrighteous- 
ness "  )  is  given  in  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward, 

J  Luke  i.  52  f.  ;  viii.  2  f.  ;  xii.  16-21  ;  xiv.  12-14. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  65 

■who  is  commended  for  making  friends  by  reducing 
the  obligations  of  his  proprietor's  debtors,  in  order 
that,  when  he  is  removed  from  his  stewardship,  they 
may  receive  him  into  their  houses.  A  similar  use  of 
riches,  thus  discredited  by  association  with  un- 
righteousness (aStKio),  is  recommended  to  the 
Pharisees.  They  should  use  it  for  the  benefit  of  the 
poor,  and  thus  make  to  themselves  friends  who  will 
intercede  for  them,  that  they  may  be  received  into 
the  "  everlasting  habitations  "  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom.-^ Thus  again  the  giving  of  alms  is  declared  to 
be  a  means  of  attaining  eternal  life.  It  also  atones 
for  the  evil  that  essentially  attaches  to  riches.  The 
"foolish"  Pharisees  are  enjoined  to  "give  as  alms 
the  things  that  are  within  [the  vessels],  and,  behold, 
all  things  are  clean "  to  them,  the  outside  of  the 
vessels  that  they  take  so  much  pains  to  cleanse, 
foods,  etc.,  since,  according  to  the  writer  of  Titus 
(i.  15),  "  to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure."  ^ 

These  passages  together  with  several  others  of  a 
similar  import  will  be  considered  more  in  detail 
when  we  come  to  the  particular  discussion  of  the 
social  teaching  in  the  third  Gospel.  They  are 
sufficient   to  show  without  special  elucidation  the 

^  Luke  xvi.  1-10.     See  Titius,  Die  neutcst.  Lehre  von  dcr  Seligkeit, 
1895,  i.  p.  78,  and  J  Weiss,  as  above,  p.  534. 
-  Luke  xi.  41. 

5 


G6  RICH  AND  POOR 

marked  and  characteristic  attitude  of  this  record 
toward  the  rich  and  the  poor,  toward  the  pursuit  of 
wealth,  and  the  bestowal  of  it  in  alms.  While  its 
spirit  is  essentially  the  same  in  this  relation  as  that 
of  the  first  Gospel,  it  draws  the  line  of  social  dis- 
tinction with  a  firmer  hand  than  the  latter,  and 
expresses  an  intenser  sympathy  with  poverty  and 
a  sharper  antipathy  to  wealth.  Its  author  has  not 
inappropriately  been  called  "  the  socialist  among  the 
evangelists."  ^ 

Eecent  investigations  render  it  very  probable 
that  the  source  used  by  the  author  of  the  third 
Gospel  comprised  material  peculiar  to  his  record 
together  with  the  \6<yca — in  other  words,  that  he 
did  not  employ  the  Xoyia  in  the  form  in  which  it 
lay  before  the  writer  of  Matthew,  but  a  revision  of 
it  whereby  it  was  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  various 
narratives  and  sayings.  The  different  recension  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount — the  blessing  upon  the 
"  poor  "  and  the  woes  upon  the  rich  and  fortunate — 
furnishes  an  illustration  of  the  modified  form  of  the 
\6yt,a  that  he  employed.^ 

The  following  words  from  Eogge  may  well  close 
this  part  of  our  discussion :  "  The  peculiarity  of  the 

^  H.  Holtzmann,  in  Protest.  Kirchenzeit.  1894,  No.  45. 
'■'  See  J.  Weiss  in  Meyer's  CommentoA-  on  Luke,  1892,  p.  280. 


MATTHEW  AND  LUKE  67 

Luke-source  strikingly  corresponds  to  the  milieu 
in  which  it  originated.  As  a  matter  of  course,  the 
poor  Jewish-Christian  churches  in  Jerusalem  and 
Palestine,  which  in  their  need  were  later  obliged  to 
ask  for  support  from  the  gentile  Christians,  above 
all  preserved  the  words  of  the  Lord  that  furnished 
them  strength  and  comfort.  That  in  such  com- 
munities these  words,  by  means  of  a  special 
emphasising  alone,  but  more  probably  through  an 
involuntary  sharpening,  should  have  received  a 
slight  intensification  in  favour  of  the  poor,  is  the 
more  explicable  and  natural  as  it  was  believed  that 
thereby  one  remained  in  the  spirit  of  the  great 
Teacher  who  had  compassion  on  the  weary  and 
heavy-laden."  ^ 

1  Der  irdische  Besitz,  p.  17 


CHAPTEE    III 

THE  POINT   OF  VIEW   IN   THE   GOSPELS 

Apart  from  the  question  as  to  what  matter  the 
records  represent  to  have  been  of  paramount  im- 
portance in  the  first  proclamation  of  the  gospel  or 
the  good  news,  no  one  can  deny  that  great 
prominence  is  given  to  an  interest  in  the  welfare  of 
the  poor  and  unfortunate.  In  the  account  in  Luke 
of  Jesus'  first  public  appearance  in  the  synagogue  at 
Nazareth,  apparently  taken  from  the  peculiar  source 
of  the  writer  of  this  Gospel  and  intended  to  serve  as 
a  "programme"  of  the  gospel  -  message  as  he 
apprehended  it,  Jesus  is  represented  as  having  read 
from  the  roll  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  as  follows : — 

The  Spirit  of  tlie  Lord  is  upon  me, 
Because  he  anointed  me  to  preach 

good  tidings  to  the  poor  : 
He  hath  sent  me  to  proclaim  release 

to  the  captives, 
And  recovering  of  sight  to  the  Mind, 
68 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    69 

To  set  at  liberty  them  that  are  bruised, 

To  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord. 

That  there  mcay  be  no  misunderstanding  regarding 
the  application  of  these  words,  Jesus  is  made  to  say : 
"To-day  hath  this  scripture  been  fulfilled  in  your 
ears."  ^ 

The  same  Gospel  has  another  passage  of  similar 
import,  also  placed  early  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and 
having,  moreover,  a  parallel  in  Matthew  of  such 
verbal  agreement  as  to  indicate  a  common  source. 
In  answer  to  the  question  of  John  the  Baptist,  con- 
veyed by  two  of  his  disciples :  "  Art  thou  he  that 
Cometh  [Messiah],  or  look  we  for  another  ? "  Jesus  is 
made  to  say:  "Tell  John  what  things  ye  have  seen 
and  heard  ;  the  blind  receive  their  sight,  the  lame 
walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead 
are  raised  up,  the  poor  have  good  tidings  preached  to 
them."  ^  In  an  outcry  of  ecstasy  "  in  the  Holy  Spirit " 
he  thanks  the  Father  that  the  contents  of  his  gospel 
have  been  hidden  from  the  wise  and  understanding, 
and  have  been  revealed  to  "  babes,"  to  the  vjjttiol, 
the  untaught,  unskilled,  the  lowly  folk  from  the 
midst  of  whom  his  disciples  were  chosen,^  Who  but 
these  lowly  poor,  on  whom  the  religious  ceremonial 

>  Luke  iv.  16-22.  2  l^i^^  ^j;   22  ;  Matt.  xi.  5  f. 

*  Luke  X.  21  ;  Matt.  xi.  25. 


70  RICH  AND  POOR 

of  the  time  laid  "  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be 
borne,"  are  included  in  the  great  invitation :  "  Come 
unto  me,  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden, 
and  I  will  give  you  rest "  ?  ^  The  promise  of  an 
easy  yoke  is  to  those  that  were  panting  under  a 
galling  load. 

These  passages  can  hardly  be  otherwise  interpreted 
than  as  an  emphatic  declaration  that  the  gospel  was 
conceived  as  pre-eminently  good  tidings  to  the  poor, 
the  unfortunate,  and  the  oppressed.  While  it  may 
be  hazardous  to  maintain  that  others  were  excluded/ 
it  is  certain  that  the  fortunate,  the  prosperous,  and 
the  rich  were  not  expressly  included.  Jesus  was 
known  as  the  one  that  was  to  come  by  the  fact  that 
his  ministry  was  primarily  to  the  blind,  the  lame, 
the  lepers,  and  the  poor.  "  The  wise  "  (cro<^ot)  and 
"  the  understanding "  (aweroC)  in  the  estimation  of 
the  world  had  not  the  insight  of  discipleship.  The 
gospel  was  revealed  to  the  untaught  and  unskilled 
{vrjTTLoi),  to  those  on  whom  the  high  and  proud  looked 
down,  and  whom  they  scorned  as  lowly  folk,  "  the 
people  of  the  land."  Those  that  laboured  under 
heavy  burdens  were  invited,  apparently  because  it 
was  assumed  that  they  would  welcome  an  invitation 
to  come  under  an  easy  yoke,  and  not  unlikely  because 

'  Matt.  xi.  28  ;  xxiii.  4. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    71 

the  sympathetic  heart  of  the  great  Teacher  yearned 
for  them. 

One  hazards  nothing,  then,  in  asserting  that 
according  to  the  representation  of  Luke,  and  in  a  less 
degree  of  Matthew,  the  Messianic  message  is  conceived 
as  pre-eminently  the  gospel  of  the  poor.  That  the 
"  poor  "  in  question  are  the  literally  poor,  and  the 
"  lame  and  blind  and  the  lepers  "  are  those  physically 
afflicted  is  obvious.  Yet  the  too  prevalent  tendency 
to  find  "  figurative  "  expressions  where  they  do  not 
exist  leads  a  great  expositor  to  say  deprecatiiigly : 
"  One  should  not  be  too  hasty  to  dissolve  the  life-like, 
fresh  colouring  of  such  words  in  the  uniform  gray  of 
our  edificatory  speech."  ^ 

It  is  especially  noteworthy,  however,  with  respect 
to  the  end  in  view  that  while  the  message  is 
distinctively  declared  to  be  "  good  tidings "  to  the 
poor  and  unfortunate,  it  does  not  very  clearly  appear 
how  these  classes  of  people  are  to  be  relieved.  The 
lame  and  deaf  and  blind  are,  indeed,  immediately 
healed,  that  is,  the  small  number  of  them  within  the 
Healer's  reach.  As  to  the  poor,  they  have  the  good 
news  "  preached "  to  them.  But  no  direct  and 
permanent  measures  for  the  "cure  of  poverty"  are 
indicated.  The  injunction  to  those  who  have 
^  Holtzmann,  Protest.  Kirchenzeitung,  1894,  No.  45. 


72  EICH  AND  POOR 

property,  "  Sell  that  you  have,  and  give  alms,"  ^  is 
more  radical  in  appearance  than  in  reality.  Obedience 
to  it  would  reduce  all  men  to  a  common  level  of 
poverty.  The  giving  of  alms  is  the  most  wasteful 
and  ineffectual  economic  measure  for  the  relief  of 
the  poor.  It  exhausts  the  source  of  charity  without 
fertilising  the  waste  of  poverty.  Interest  in  the 
needy  is,  indeed,  a  prominent  feature  of  the  "pro- 
gramme "  of  the  gospel  as  it  appears  in  the  records  ; 
but  one  searches  these  records  in  vain  for  definite 
directions  as  to  the  construction  of  a  social  order 
that  should  have  no  "  social  problem." 

Plainly  it  was  not  in  the  intention  of  Jesus  to 
furnish  a  plan  for  a  social  order.  This  was  as  remote 
from  his  purpose  as  was  the  teaching  of  a  system  of 
theology^  The  ascribing  of  modern  social  doctrines 
to  him  proceeds  upon  a  misconception  of  his 
purpose.  The  earnest  and  enthusiastic  "  Christian 
socialist,"  Naumann,  furnishes  an  illustration  of  this 
sort  of  misunderstanding  in  attributing  to  Jesus 
opposition  to  capital  as  now  held  and  employed 
in  industry.^  The  great  industrial  social  order  and 
the  beneficent  uses  that  capital  might  serve  in  the 
economy   of    the    business   world    lay   beyond    his 

^  Luke  xii.  33. 

^   IVas  heisst  christUch  Sozial.     2te  Aufl.  1896.     See  also  Todt, 
Dcr  radicale  deutsche  Sozialismus,  '2te  Aufl.  1878. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    73 

horizon.  There  is  no  hint  in  his  teachings  of  an 
interest  in  "  sociological "  problems  and  their  solution. 
The  wonder-world  of  scientific  discovery,  of  invention 
and  machinery,  the  ages  of  iron  and  steel,  of  steam 
and  electricity,  did  not  lie  within  the  scope  of  his 
idealistic  vision.  Principles,  impulses,  and  inspira- 
tions he  could,  indeed,  supply,  but  not  polities  and 
constitutions.  The  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  basis  of 
all  true  religion,  and  the  Golden  Eule,  the  principle 
of  the  true  social  order,  are  the  intuitions  of  a 
spiritual  and  ethical  prophet.  But  the  systems  of 
theology  and  the  social  polities  that  shall  embody 
these  ideals  are  the  product  of  the  ages.  They  are 
born  in  the  throes  of  human  reason  and  experience. 
The  prophet  has  no  part  in  them. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  standpoint  of  Jesus 
was  radically  different  from  that  of  the  social 
reformer.  The  method  of  the  one  cannot  be  that 
of  the  other.  The  latter  seeks  to  accomplish  his 
object  by  readjustments  of  social  relations.  He  aims 
to  change  the  conditions  of  the  industrial  world,  the 
attitude  of  the  employer  toward  the  labourer,  the 
relative  shares  of  capital  and  labour  in  the  product, 
and  by  various  practical  devices  to  diminish  poverty 
and  finally  remove  it  altogether.  This  was  not  the 
manner  of  Jesus.     He  did  not  contemplate  the  slow 


74  EICH  AND  POOE 

development  of  society  and  the  improvement  of  the 
condition  of  the  poor  by  means  of  a  long  and  painful 
wrestling  with  social  problems.     To  him  the  king-    ' 
dom  of  God  was  at  hand,  and  when  it  should  come     ^ 
there  would  be  no  social  problem.  ^""-'^  >>'  ^ 

In  the  message  of  Jesus  is  revealed  his  point  of   O-"^^ 
view.     This  message  was  in  substance  :  "  Kepent,  for      ^ 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand."  ^     The  direction  is 
given  to  his  disciples,  when  he  sends  them  out  to  ^ 

preach,  to  proclaim  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  or  of 
God  is  about  to  come.^  He  regarded  the  power  of 
God  over  the  dominion  of  Satan,  manifested  in  his 
own  casting  out  of  demons,  as  an  evidence  that  His 
kingdom  was  at  hand :  "  If  by  the  finger  of  God  I 
cast  out  devils,  then  is  the  kingdom  of  God  come 
upon  you."^  A  stronger  than  the  strong  man  has 
come  upon  the  prince  of  evil,  and  overcome  him,  and 
taken  from  him  his  whole  armour  in  which  he 
trusted.*  The  reign  of  evil  in  the  world,  with  its 
accompaniment  of  poverty,  distress,  and  sin,  is  about 
to  come  to  an  end,  and  the  blessed  reign  of  God 
to  begin. 

1  Matt.  iv.  17  ;  cf.  Mark  i.  15. 

2  Matt,  X.  7  ;  Luke  x.  9,  11. 

^  Luke  xi.  20.  Here  ^(pdacTep  is  probably  equivalent  to  liyyiKev, 
a  translation  into  Greek  of  the  same  Aramaic  word.  See  J.  Weiss, 
Die  Prcdigt  Jesu  voin  Rdche  Oottes,  2te  Aufl.  p.  71. 

■*  Luke  xi.  21  f. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    75 

For  this  kingdom,  this  reign  of  God  unhindered 
by  the  dominion  of  the  power  of  evil,  is  a  good, 
the  siipreme  good,  indeed.  To  those  who  "seek" 
it  by  directing  their  desires,  their  thought,  and  their 
will  toward  it,  all  other  things  regarded  as  good  will 
be  added.^  Its  coming  is  a  consummation  to  be 
prayed  for.  It  is  like  a  treasure,  a  goodly  pearl,  to 
procure  which  one  may  well  sacrifice  all  one's 
possessions.  The  righteous  shall  shine  forth  in  it 
as  the  sun  in  heaven,  while  all  that  do  iniquity  shall 
be  cast  out  of  it.  It  is  the  place  of  blessedness, 
where  the  patriarchs  dwell." 

This  good,  this  highest  good,  the  kingdom,  is  a  gift 
of  God  that  men  may  appropriate  and  enjoy,  that 
they  may  possess,  on  certain  conditions.  It  is  a 
domain  into  which  some  may  enter,  and  from  which 
others  are  excluded,  according  as  the  former  are 
fitted  and  the  latter  are  unfitted  for  it.  Conversion 
from  a  former  evil  life,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  a 
righteousness  exceeding  that  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  the  spirit  and  temper  of  the  child,  are 
some  of  the  conditions  required  for  participation  in 
its  blessedness.  Since  it  is  the  dominion  of  God, 
the  godly  alone  can  be  received  into  it.     The  com- 

1  Matt.  vi.  33  ;  Luke  xii.  31. 
^  Matt.  vi.  10  ;  viii.  11  ;  xiii.  41-46. 


76  RICH  ANJJ  POOR 

prehensive  equivalent  term  for  all  that  the  possession 
of  the  kingdom  denotes  is  "life"  (j^oitj).  To  have 
life,  to  inherit  life,  to  enter  into  life,  are  expressions 
synonymous  with  possessing  or  entering  into  the 
kingdom.^ 

Since  the  kingdom  is  a  gift  bestowed  according 
to  the  "good  pleasure  of  the  Father,"  it  is  not  an 
achievement  of  men.  Its  coming  and  establishment 
are  independent  of  their  wishes  or  their  work.  Men 
have  only  to  prepare  themselves  to  enter  into  it, 
whenever  in  God's  chosen  time  it  shall  come  as 
His  domain  and  dominion.  Repentance  does  not 
condition  or  hasten  its  advent.  Men  are  exhorted 
to  repent,  not  in  order  to  bring  it,  but  in  order  to 
be  prepared  to  receive  it.  It  is  declared  to  be  at 
hand,  whether  they  repent  or  not.  "The  time  is 
fulfilled,"  "the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord"  is 
proclaimed.  It  is  the  part  of  men  to  repent  and 
believe  in  the  good  tidings,  and  they  will  be  received 
into  the  blessedness  of  the  kingdom  "  prepared  "  for 
them  "from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  If  the 
publicans  and  harlots  are  on  the  way  to  enter  into 
it  before  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  it  is  because  of 
their  penitent  mood.     If  it  is  the  possession  of  the 

^  Matt.  xix.  16  ;  Mark  x.  17  ;  Luke  xviii.  18.  Of.  Holtzmaun, 
Ncutest.  Thcol.  i.  p.  204 ;  Titius,  Die  neutest.  Lehrc  von  der 
Seligkeit,  i.  pp.  30,  34. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    77 

poor,  it  is  because  their  spiritual  susceptibilities  have 
not  been  stifled  in  the  sensuous  enjoyments  that 
disqualified  the  rich  for  apprehending  the  things  that 
belong  to  the  eternal  life. 

In  his  proclamation  of  the  approach  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  Jesus  expressed  essentially  the 
hope  and  ardent  longing  of  his  age.  We  cannot 
here  do  more  than  touch  upon  this  important  aspect 
of  the  subject,  and  cannot  adduce  the  abundant 
testimony  from  the  later  Jewish  literature.  The 
proposition  is  hardly  open  to  question  in  view  of  the 
learned  researches  that  tend  to  establish  it.-^  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  whatever  new  features  the  conception 
of  the  kingdom  may  have  received  in  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  it  did  not  originate  with  him.  The  coming 
of  a  supernatural  kingdom  through  a  divine  interven- 
tion, a  glorious  reign  of  God,  extending  over  the 
earth  and  having  Palestine  as  its  centre,  introduced 
by  a  coming  of  the  Messiah,  a  renewal  of  the  world, 

^  See  in  particular  Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  judischen  Voiles  im 
Zeitalter  Christi,  3te  Aufl.  ii.  pp.  522-556  ;  Toy,  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  chap.  vi.  ;  and  Schnedermann,  Reich  Ooites,  1893. 
"  It  was  a  religio-historical  necessity  that  a  pre-eminently  religions 
spirit  like  Jesus  took  the  Messianic  domain  as  his  point  of 
departure.  For  that  which  he  felt,  willed,  longed  for,  the  king- 
dom of  God  was  the  appropriate,  popular  expression.  He  did  not 
choose  it,  and  did  not  create  it.  He  accepted  it  as  naturally  and 
as  necessarily  as  he  spoke  the  language  of  his  time." — Balden- 
sperger.  Das  Selbslbewusstsein  Jesii,  1892,  pp.  131  f. 


78  RICH  AND  POOR 

a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  a  judgment  with 
aeonian  awards, — these  are,  in  the  main,  common 
features  of  the  two  representations.  The  Messianic 
kingdom  will  be  composed  of  a  holy  people.  "  The 
righteous  and  pious  will  be  received  into  paradise," 
such  is  the  Jewish  conception,  "  and  will  dwell  on 
the  heights  of  that  world,  and  behold  the  majesty 
of  God  and  His  holy  angels."  ^  New  in  the  concep- 
tion of  Jesus  is  the  profounder  spiritual  apprehension 
of  the  kingdom.  The  Fatherhood  of  God,  the  new 
idea  of  the  resurrection  as  a  state  in  which  there 
should  be  no  marriage,  since  those  accounted  worthy 
to  attain  it  would  be  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven, 
and  the  sons  of  God,  because  sons  of  the  resurrection, 
love  to  God  and  man  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  law, 
and  the  essentially  religious  character  of  the  king- 
dom,— these  are  features  of  the  kingdom  due  to  the 
deeper  spiritual  insight  of  the  great  Teacher.  It  has 
accordingly  been  truly  observed  that  while  "  in  his 
delineation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  Jesus  attached 
himself  essentially  to  the  Jewish  conception,  his 
inner  relation  to  this  idea  was  a  whoUy  altered  one."  ^ 
In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  passages  in 
which    the    coming    of    the    kingdom    of    God   is 

'  Schiirer,  ii.  p.  553.     See  Matt.  xix.  28  ;  xxii.  30  ;  xxv.  31-46  ; 
Mark  ix.  1  ;  xiv.  62. 

^  Titius,  Lehre  von  der  Seligkeit,  i.  p.  40. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    79 

mentioned,  this  coming  is  spoken  of  as  in  the  future, 
although  near  at  hand.  The  intense  conception  of 
the  kingdom  as  impending,  as  "  at  hand,"  sometimes 
leads  to  expressions  that  appear  to  denote  its  actual 
presence.  Thus  it  is  said  by  anticipation  to  he  "  in 
the  midst "  (eWo?)  of  the  Jews.^  The  power  of  Jesus 
over  the  evil  one,  the  falling  of  Satan  like  lightning 
from  heaven,  denotes  the  dawn  of  the  dominion  of 
God  in  the  world.  But  the  actual  coming  is  still 
in  the  future,  and  is  to  be  prayed  for  as  not  yet 
realised.  For  it  has  no  natural  development.  As 
"given"  by  God,  it  is  not  an  institution  of  man  that 
grows  by  slow  accretions  through  human  endeavour 
by  gradually  overcoming  and  casting  out  evil  and 
fostering  the  good.  It  can  be  taken  from  one  nation 
and  given  to  another.  It  is  wholly  at  God's  disposal. 
Man  has  only  to  receive  it,  to  enter  in  and  enjoy  it. 
It  is  comparable  to  a  grain  of  mustard  seed  and 
leaven  only  as  its  present  prospect  is  set  over  against 
the  increased  number  of  disciples  who  will  be 
members  of  it  when  it  comes  in  glory.  It  is  con- 
ceived as  eschatological,  that  is,  its  coming  denotes 
the  end  of  the  old  order,  the  present  age,  and  the 
dawn  of  the  new  order,  the  age  to  come,  the  age  of 
the  Messiah.     Regarded  otherwise  than  this,  it  is  an 

'  Luke  xvii.  21. 


80  EICH  AND  POOR 

historical  bastard  and  monstrosity,  and  its  connotation 
would  have  been  unintelligible  to  the  people  whom 
Jesus  addressed.  It  could  have  been  and  can  be 
known  only  in  its  Jewish  setting. 

This  view  of  the  matter  is  supported  by  the 
passages  that  declare  the  sudden  coming  of  the 
kingdom  in  the  near  future,  before  some  of  the 
hearers  of  Jesus  shall  have  "  tasted  of  death."  It  was 
to  be  seen  manifested  in  *'  power."  There  are  no  signs 
by  the  observation  of  which  one  can  determine  the 
precise  time  of  its  coming,  a  time  unknown  to  Jesus 
himself.  In  this  sense  it  "  cometh  not  with 
observation."  It  will  come  upon  the  world  with 
such  a  surprise  as  the  deluge  caused  in  the  time  of 
Noah,  or  the  destruction  of  Sodom  in  the  days  of 
Lot.  Far  from  being  the  Messiah  of  a  slowly 
evolving  kingdom,  the  Son  of  Man  will  be  "  in  his 
day "  "  as  the  lightning,  [which]  when  it  lighteneth 
out  of  the  one  part  under  the  heaven,  shineth  unto  the 
other  part  under  heaven."  ^     In  connection  with  this 

^  Mark  ix.  1  ;  Luke  xvii.  21-31.  "We  cannot  here  enter  into  the 
discussion  of  the  complicated  question  of  the  meaning  of  tlie  term  Son 
of  Man  in  the  Gospels.  The  recent  investigations  by  Aramaic  scholars, 
Wellhausen,  A.  Meyer,  Lietzmann,  N.  Schmidt,  and  others,  have 
not  cleared  up  the  difficulties  of  the  problem.  It  is  in  any  case  in- 
contestable that  the  Gospels  represent  the  Son  of  Man,  who  was  to 
come  in  glory,  as  the  one  who  must  first  "sufler  many  things." 
To  reject  such  words  as  sayings  of  Jesus  is  a  violent  exegetical 
procedure'  tliat  tends  to  discredit  the  records  entirely. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    81 

manifestation  will  occur  the  great  Messianic 
judgment,  for,  as  John  preached,  the  threshing-floor 
is  to  be  cleansed,  and  the  wheat  separated  from  the 
chaff.  Thus  it  will  appear  that  saying  "  Lord,  Lord," 
does  not  ensure  admittance  into  the  kingdom.  But 
to  many  who  have  prophesied  and  cast  out  devils  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  will  he  say,  "  in  that  day,"  "  I 
never  knew  you:  depart  from  me,  ye  that  work 
iniquity."  The  "  angels  "  will  be  sent  to  "  gather  out 
of  the  kingdom  all  things  that  cause  stumbling,  and 
them  that  do  iniquity,"  and  to  bring  "the  elect" 
of  the  Messiah  "  from  the  four  winds."  ^ 

Thus  by  means  of  a  divine  intervention,  as  comes 
a  catastrophe  from  heaven,  the  old  order  will  pass 
away,  the  pre-Messianic  age,  "this  age"  (o  alcbv 
0UT09),  will  suddenly  come  to  an  end,  and  "  the  age 
to  come  "  (0  alcbv  fiiXKwv)  will  be  ushered  in.  The 
kingdom  of  God  will  descend  upon  the  earth,  and  His 
will,  as  it  is  done  in  heaven,  will  be  done  here  below. 
The  Messiah  wHl  descend  from  heaven  and  sit  in 
judgment  upon  "all  nations,"  separating  between  the 
righteous,  "the  blessed  of  the  Father,"  and  the 
wicked,  the  "  cursed,"  doomed  to  the  seonian  fire, 
"  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  Correspond- 
ing to  this  new  spiritual  order,  there  will  be  estab- 

1  Matt.  iii.  12  ;  xiii.  41  ;  Mark  xiii.  27. 


82  EICH  AND  POOR 

lished  a  new  physical  order  iii  the  TraXcyyeveoria  or 
re-creatiou,  the  restoration  of  the  earth  to  the 
condition  in  which  it  was  believed  to  be  before  the 
fall  of  Adam,  "  which  the  Jews  looked  for  in 
connection  with  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  and 
which  the  primitive  Christians  expected  in  connection 
with  the  visible  return  of  Jesus  from  heaven."  ^ 

It  is  evident  that  such  a  point  of  view  must 
radically  affect  the  social  perspective  of  one  who 
occupies  it,  and  from  it  looks  forth  upon  the 
world.  A  belief  in  the  impending  end  of  the  exist- 
ing world-order  excludes  the  occupation  with  plans 
and  policies  for  the  remote  future.  He  who  looks 
for  the  immediate  collapse  of  the  social  order  will  not 
engage  in  the  solution  of  social  problems.  The 
sword  of  the  swift  judgment  about  to  come  will  cut 
these  Gordian  knots.  Hence  the  limitations  of  the 
scope  of  the  beatitudes.  Since  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  about  to  come,  they  are  "  blessed "  who  are 
approximately  in  the  mood  to  receive  it,  most  likely 
to  "  repent  and  believe  in  the  good  tidings."     Such 

^  See  Thayer's  Lexicon,  sub  voce  iraKiyyeveaia  and  Matt.  xix.  28 ; 
XXV.  31-46.  The  so-called  "apocalyptic"  interpretation  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  elaborately  defended  in  several  recent  works, 
among  which  may  be  mentioned  those  of  J.  Weiss,  Die  Prcdigt 
Jesu  vom  Eeiche  GoUes,  1900  ;  Baldensperger,  Das  Sclbstbewusstsein 
Jcsu,  1892  ;  and  Schmoller,  Die  Lehrc  vom  Eeiche  Gotlcs,  1891. 
See  also  Bossuet,  Die  Prcdigt  Jesu,  etc. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    83 

are  the  meek,  the  poor,  the  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness, the  pure  in  heart,  the  peace-makers.  Here  the 
exclusions  are  significant.  To  one  looking  back 
through  the  historic  struggles  of  nineteen  centuries 
this  list  appears,  to  say  the  least,  anything  but 
exhaustive.  If  the  judgment  of  history  has  not 
reversed  that  of  these  beatitudes,  it  has  at  any  rate 
been  more  comprehensive.  It  includes  among  the 
"  blessed  "  the  men  who  by  interpreting  nature  have 
made  science  serve  the  welfare  of  man,  who  have 
founded  states,  made  war  in  the  interest  of  liberty, 
interpreted  the  law  in  behalf  of  justice,  interpreted 
human  life  by  philosophic  or  poetic  insight,  and  even 
by  means  of  riches  established  beneficent  industries. 
Erom  the  point  of  view  of  an  idealist,  a  prophet,  to 
whom  nineteen  centuries  ago  the  world  was  old  and 
hastening  to  its  doom,  the  beatitudes  of  the  Gospels 
are  the  sublime  expression  of  a  faith  in  the  salvation 
of  what  could  then  be  saved.  But  the  world  was  not 
old,  and  its  youthful  vigour  has  justified  a  different 
horoscope  of  the  future  of  humanity. 

A  view  of  the  future  controlled  by  the  conviction 
that  the  end  of  the  age  is  at  hand,  and  accordingly 
taking  no  account  of  the  conditions  and  exigencies  of  a 
protracted  social  development,  is  indicated  in  a  series 
of  injunctions  respecting  non-resistance.     The  teach- 


84  EICH  AND  POOR 

ing  that  evil,  or  he  that  is  evil,  is  not  to  be  resisted ; 
that  one  must  not  defend  oneself  against  assault,  but 
rather  turn  the  other  cheek  when  the  right  cheek  is 
smitten ;  that  a  borrower  should  not  be  refused ; 
that  another  garment  should  be  given  to  him  who 
takes  a  man's  coat ;  and  that  one  should  not  ask 
one's  goods  of  a  man  who  takes  them  away,^ — these 
are  injunctions  that  are,  to  say  the  least,  not  adapted 
to  an  orderly  society,  founded  upon  respect  for  the 
person,  the  rights,  and  the  property  of  its  members. 
They  present  an  exegetical  difficulty  only  to  one  who 
regards  them  as  ethical  teachings  of  universal 
application.  One  so  regarding  them  may  resort  to 
an  explanation  that  refers  them  to  Oriental  modes  of 
speech  or  to  hyperbole.  But  one  does  not  thus  do 
justice  to  the  mood  out  of  which  the  words  were 
spoken.  For  after  allowance  has  been  made  for 
Oriental  exaggeration,  the  principle  of  non-resistance 
to  evil  or  to  the  evil  man  remains.  The  teaching 
did  not  relate  to  the  foundation  of  a  permanent  social 
order,  but  to  preparation  for  the  impending  kingdom 
of  God.  It  was  not  addressed  to  men  whose  abiding 
place  was  in  this  age,  but  to  men  who  stood  in  the 
evening  twilight  of  the  pre-Messianic  age,  and  looked 
toward  the  dawn  of  the  glorious  aeon  that  was  to  come. 

1  Matt.  V.  39-42  ;  Luke  vi.  29,  30. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    85 

The  teaching  that  enjoins  indifference  to  the 
things  of  this  world,  food,  and  clothing,  requires 
a  similar  interpretation.  The  idea  is  that  solicitude 
about  what  one  shall  eat  or  wear  is  incompatible 
with  preparation  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  who  is 
striving  for  this  should  have  unlimited  confidence  in 
God.  The  heavenly  Father,  who  cares  for  the  birds, 
and  clothes  the  lilies  with  more  than  royal  splendour, 
knows  that  those  to  whom  it  is  His  good  pleasure  to 
give  the  kingdom  "  have  need  of  all  these  things," 
and  that  they  are  of  more  value  than  the  birds.  Let 
"  the  gentiles  "  seek  for  these  temporal  things.  He 
is  "  of  little  faith  "  who  asks  with  solicitude  what  he 
shall  eat  or  wherewithal  he  shall  be  clothed.  Let  him 
seek  the  kingdom,  and  the  needed  food  and  raiment 
"will  be  added"  to  him.^  Such  words  are  not 
adapted  to  the  practical  life  of  men,  and  must  not  be 
regarded  as  spoken  with  a  view  to  regulating  it. 
They  are  the  sublime  expressions  of  the  profoundest 
religious  mood.  The  ancient,  indomitable  trust  of 
Israel  in  Yahweh  is  uttered  again  in  these  words  of 
its  greatest  spiritual  Son — the  faith  that  if  the  people 

'  Matt.  vi.  25-34.  "Since  the  least  event  in  nature  does  not 
happen  apart  from  the  effective  action  of  God,  and  does  not  take 
its  course  without  Him,  the  disciple  has  no  need  to  take  anxious 
thought  or  to  be  afraid."— Liitgert,  Das  Reich  Oottes,  1895,  p. 
166. 


86  EICH  AND  POOE 

walk  in  the  statutes  of  God,  all  material  blessings 
will  be  poured  in  abundance  upon  them,  "rains  in 
their  season,"  the  increase  of  the  land,  the  fruits  of 
the  trees,  so  that  they  "  shall  eat  their  bread  to  the 
full,"  and  dwell  in  safety  in  the  land.^ 

The  entire  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  correctly  represented  as  having  been 
controlled  by  this  eschatological  conception.  He 
did  not  always  speak  as  the  prophet  of  judgment 
with  reference  to  the  end  of  the  age  and  the  im- 
pending kingdom  of  God.  The  shadow  of  the 
approaching  catastrophe  appears  to  be  sometimes 
lifted,  the  intense  and  sombre  mood  of  prophetic 
ecstasy  passes,  and  words  come  from  his  lips  that 
proceed  from  the  clearest  ethical  insight,  and  that 
are  of  permanent  and  universal  validity.  Such  are 
the  sayings  that  the  lustful  thought  is  adulterous ; 
that  the  evil  that  proceeds  out  of  the  heart  of  a  man  is 
corrupting ;  that  the  two  great  principles  of  love  to 
God  and  one's  neighbour  include  all  that  the  law 
enjoins,  and  that  to  "  live  "  is  to  observe  these  require- 
ments. Such  is  the  teaching  that  the  kindness  of 
the  Father  to  the  unthankful  and  the  evil  is  the 
right  disposition  of  men,  and  such  is  the  spirit  at 
least  of  the  injunction  that  protects  woman  against 

*  Lev.  XX vi.  3  f.  ;  Psa.  civ.  14  f.  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  28. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    87 

man's  "hardness  of  heart,"  to  which  the  old  law 
made  concessions.^  Thus  there  are  two  sides  of  his 
teaching  that  must  be  taken  into  account  in  making 
up  a  complete  judgment  of  its  contents,  two  points 
of  view  from  which  he  looked  at  the  world,  two 
moods  out  of  which  he  spoke — the  mood  of  the 
prophet  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  mood  of  the 
ethical  teacher. 

The  two  series  of  sayings,  delivered  from  these 
two  standpoints,  must  be  separately  regarded  and 
estimated.  The  one  series  is  controlled  by  immediate 
reference  to  the  coming  kingdom,  the  other  has  no 
reference  to  it.  We  cannot,  then,  with  a  recent 
writer,  "  adopt  the  paradoxical  conclusion  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  had  to  Jesus  both  significations, 
that  of  a  future  and  that  of  a  present  state."  "  The 
kingdom  that  was  to  come  "  with  power  "  was  present 
to  him  only  in  the  intense  realisation  of  it  as  "  at 
hand."  Its  coming  denoted  nothing  less  than  a 
rupture  of  the  existing  world-order.  "  God  Himself, 
not  human  hands,  establishes  the  kingdom.  A  trans- 
formation of  the  world  takes  place  that  not  only 
changes  the  nature  of  man,  but  also  extends  to 
inanimate  nature,  and  draws  even  the  heavens  into 

1  Matt.  V,  28  ;  Mark  vii.  21  ;  x.  11  ;  xii.  29  f,  ;  Luke  vi.  35  f.  ; 
X.  26  f. 

^  Peabody,  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question,  1900,  \k  100. 


88  RICH  AND  POOR 

its   domain."  ^     Such   an  event  can  be  proclaimed 
only  with  the  intense  earnestness  of  the  prophet. 

This  is  the  mood  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  in 
the  Gospels  as  speaking  when  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
in  question.  Often  does  every  other  consideration, 
every  other  motive,  give  place  to  this  dominant  idea, 
to  the  one  thought  and  motive  in  the  presence  of 
which  all  others  are  insignificant.  The  foremost 
proclamation,  that  of  repentance,  is  set  in  the  lurid 
light  of  the  impending  catastrophe  :  "  Repent,  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  "  The  time  is 
fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand :  repent 
ye,  and  believe  in  the  gospel ! "  ^  Repentance  is 
enjoined,  because  a  change  of  mind  (/jLerdvoia)  is  the 
indispensable  condition  of  sharing  in  the  blessedness 
of  the  kingdom.  In  the  presence  of  the  mighty 
urgency  of  this  motive  all  others  remain  unexpressed. 
The   omission   to   mention   other  grounds    for    the 

^  Titius,  Die  neutest.  Lelire  von  der  SeligTceit,  i.  p.  48.  ' '  The 
kingdom  in  which  all  wrong  and  rigour  of  the  present  will  be  com- 
pensated for,  and  in  which  a  total  reversal  of  the  existing  situation 
will  be  effected,  belongs  to  the  future.  In  this  sense  it  is  and 
remains  eschatological.  Of  its  reality  those  disciples  will  be  able 
to  convince  themselves  who  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  come,  and 
with  him  his  kingdom." — Holtzmann,  Neutest.  Theol.  i.  p.  224. 
"  In  the  language  and  thought  of  Jesus,  world  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  are  absolutely  irreconcilable  opposites  :  the  world  must  pass 
away  in  order  to  give  place  to  the  kingdom  of  God." — J.  Weiss,  Die 
Nachfolge  Christl  und  die  Predigt  der  Gegenwart,  1895,  p.  168. 

2  Matt.  iv.  17;  Mark  i.  15. 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    89 

preaching  of  repentance  is  significant,  and  denotes, 
when  this  saying  is  contrasted  with  the  present 
ethical -religious  proclamation  of  the  gospel,  the 
distance  that  separates  the  modern  preacher  of 
Christianity  from  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth.  A 
similar  intensity,  in  view  of  the  coming  great  event 
that  was  to  shake  the  world,  is  evident  in  the 
announcement  relating  to  the  Galileans  whose  blood 
Pilate  mingled  with  their  sacrifices,  and  those  of 
Jerusalem  on  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell :  "  I 
tell  you,  except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise 
perish,"  ^  that  is,  in  the  impending  Messianic 
judgment.  A  motive  of  fear  in  view  of  a  fearful 
catastrophe ! 

The  two  opposite  points  of  view  already  indicated 
are  illustrated  in  the  teachings  ascribed  to  Jesus 
in  the  Gospels  regarding  the  relations  of  men  in  the 
family.  On  the  one  hand,  we  have  the  purely  ethical 
precepts  touching  the  sanctity  of  marriage  in  which 
the  lustful  feeling  toward  a  woman  (even  a  wife, 
according  to  Tolstoi's  interpretation)  is  declared  to 
be  sinful,  and  divorce  for  the  purpose  of  remarriage 
is  absolutely  forbidden,^  together  with  the  recognition 

'  Luke  xiii.  1-5, 

2  Mark  x.  11  ;  Luke  xvi.  18.  These  two  evangelists  agree 
against  Matthew  in  reporting  an  unqualified  prohibition  of  divorce. 
The  presumption  is  in  favour  of  the  originality  of  their  account  of 


90  EICH  AND  POOE 

of  the  duty  of  children  toward  their  parents.-'  On 
the  other  hand,  the  intense  mood  of  the  prophet  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  conspicuous  in  the  indifference 
to  family  ties  manifested  in  the  answer  when  told 
that  his  mother  and  brothers  were  standing  without 
and  wishing  to  see  him.^  The  record  does  not 
inform  us  whether  or  no  Jesus  made  any  other 
response  than  the  one  reported  to  the  request 
of  his  family  to  see  him.  It  certainly  does  not 
tell  us  that  he  did,  and  we  are  not  authorised 
in  drawing  any  inferences  not  supported  by  the 
account  as  it  stands.  The  feelings  of  family 
affection  and  of  filial  piety  are  rudely  repudiated  in 
the  refusal  to  permit  one  who  wished  to  follow  him 
to  take  leave  of  his  family  and  another  to  bury  his 
father.  He  that  loves  father  or  mother  more  than 
him  is  not  worthy  of  him.  A  renunciation  that  is 
intensified  to  the  impossible,  if  not  to  the  monstrous, 
is  demanded  in  the  declaration  that  no  one  can  be 
his  disciple  who  does  not  "  hate  "  his  own  father  and 

tlie  matter,  while  Matthew's  qualification,  irapeKrhs  \6yov  iropvelai 
and  /XT]  iirl  wopvcia,  is  doubtless  a  concession  to  a  sense  of  the  too 
great  strictness  of  the  requirement  (Matt.  v.  32  ;  xix.  9). 

1  Mark  vii.  10-13. 

'^  Mark  iii.  33  flF.  The  refusal  to  respond  to  the  wish  of  his 
mother  that  is  plainly  implied  would  be  most  unfilial  in  one  whom 
the  urgency  of  the  mission  of  the  kingdom  of  God  had  not  wrought 
to  the  highest  intensity.  Indeed,  the  family  of  Jesus  thought 
him  "beside  himself"  (Murk  iii.  21). 


POINT  OF  VIEW  IN  THE  GOSPELS    91 

mother,  and  wife  and  children,  and  brethren  and 
sisters.^  These  words  were  spoken  out  of  the  exalted 
mood  that  prompted  the  harsh  rebuke  addressed  to 
Peter,  when  he  tried  to  dissuade  Jesus  from  making 
the  supreme  sacrifice  :  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan : 
thou  art  a  stumbling-block  unto  me."  They  remind 
us  of  the  promise  of  eternal  life  or  the  blessedness  of 
the  kingdom  to  those  who  had  left  house  or  wife 
or  brethren  or  parents  for  its  sake,  and  of  the  doom 
of  exclusion  pronounced  upon  the  man  who  had 
married  a  wife,  and  hence  declined  the  invitation 
to  the  great  supper.^  The  separation  from  the 
interests  and  ties  of  "  this  age "  must  be  absolute 
in  the  case  of  those  who  would  be  prepared  for  the 
"  age  to  come."  Either  God  or  Mammon !  One 
cannot  serve  two  masters. 

1  Luke  xiv.  26.  '^  Luke  xiv.  20  :  xviii.  29. 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE  TEACHING  IN   MATTHEW 

The  foregoing  considerations  indicate  the  point  of 
view  from  which  the  sayings  of  Jesus  about  earthly- 
possessions,  riches  and  poverty,  rich  and  poor,  that 
are  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  are  to  be  interpreted. 
Just  as  the  words  about  the  kingdom  of  God  are 
misconceived  when  they  are  regarded  apart  from 
their  historical  setting,  so  those  relating  to  what 
we  now  call  the  social  question  are  misunderstood 
when  torn  from  the  connection  of  thought  that 
determined  them.  This  averment  will  not  be  dis- 
puted by  any  one  who  considers  the  fact  that  in  this 
connection  of  thought  there  was  no  social  question. 
The  interests  and  aims  that  occupied  the  thought 
of  Jesus  lay  in  the  realm  of  religion,  and  not  at  all 
in  that  of  "  sociology."  Naumann,  who  is  not  always 
judicious,  lays  down  a  correct  principle  when   he 

92 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW        93 

says  that  we  should  not  seek  in  Jesus  a  theory  of 
political  economy.-^ 

We  need  not  pause  upon  the  discussion  of  the 
question  whether  the  words  of  Jesus  that  are  to 
be  considered  were  spoken  with  reference  to  the  end 
of  the  age,  that  is,  eschatologically,  or  with  a  view  to 
salvation.^  For  the  two  points  of  view  are  not  in 
principle  widely  different,  since  salvation,  historically 
understood,  is  a  state  of  preparedness  for  the  kingdom 
of  God,  which  was  to  come  at  the  end  of  the  age. 
Salvation  being  conceived  as  eschatological,  it  is 
evident  that  the  soteriological  and  the  eschatological 
conceptions  are  two  names  for  essentially  one  and 
the  same  way  of  looking  at  the  world.  By  what- 
ever name  it  may  be  called,  the  important  matter 
to  be  kept  in  mind  is  that  it  was  a  religious, 
and  not  a  "sociological"  way  of  looking  at  the 
world. 

Disregard  of  these  considerations  leads  to  the  sin 
against  exegesis  that  is  committed  when  there  are 
read  into  the  words  in  question  meanings  that  were 
not  in  the  mind  of  him  who  spoke  them.  Thus 
it  is  apparently  the  purpose  of  a  recent   German 


'  Jesus  als  Volksmann,  1894,  p.  4. 

"  The  former  view  is  defended  by  J.  Weiss,  Die  Predigt  Jesu, 
and  the  latter  by  Titius,  Die  neutcst,  Lehre  von  der  Seligkeit. 


94  RICH  AND  POOR 

writer^  to  make  Jesus  speak  like  a  modern  social 
reformer,  disposed  to  conciliate  the  rich.  Accordingly, 
Jesus'  requirement  to  sell  all  and  give  alms  is  inter- 
preted to  mean  that  the  disciple  of  the  Master  must 
have  the  "inward  disposition"  of  benevolence,  the 
willingness  to  make  self-sacrifice.^  This  is  to  err  as 
much  in  one  direction  as  Naumann  errs  in  another, 
when  he  understands  Jesus  to  speak  like  a  "  Christian- 
social  "  reformer  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  method  of  Dr.  Jacoby, 
who  is  here  considered  as  a  representative  of  a  class 
of  interpreters,  that  he  endeavours  to  minimise  the 
prominence  given  to  the  poor  as  the  special  objects 
of  Jesus'  mission  by  asserting  that  the  rich  were 
as  well  the  objects  of  it,  although  not  mentioned 
as  such.  On  the  contrary,  the  answer  sent  to  John 
as  an  indication  that  might  satisfy  him  with  respect 
to  the  Messiahship,  "The  poor  have  the  gospel 
preached  to  them,"  is  decisive  as  to  the  primary 
intention  of  the  mission  of  Jesus.  It  is  doubtless 
legitimate  to  infer  from  what  is  otherwise  known  of 
Jesus  that  no  rich  man  who  could  fulfil  the  conditions 
of  discipleship,  if  such  an  achievement  were  possible, 

^  H.  Jacoby,  Jesus  Christus  wid  die  irclischen  Giiier,  1875,  and 
Ncutest.  Ethik,  1899. 

2  Neutest.  Ethik,  p.  140  f.  See  Pfleiderer  in  Protest.  Monatshefte, 
1900,  Heft  4,  p.  134. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW        95 

would  be  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  But 
this  matter  is  quite  apart  from  the  question,  What 
class  of  people  do  the  Gospels  represent  as  primarily 
the  objects  of  Jesus'  mission  ?  His  sympathies  as 
well  as  his  superiority  to  the  legalistic  prejudices  of 
the  time  are  indicated  by  the  fact  that  he  sat  at 
table  with  persons  who  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Pharisees  were  unfit  to  be  their  associates,  and  who 
were  objects  of  scorn  to  the  rich  and  powerful  among 
the  Jews.  In  answer  to  the  question  addressed  by 
the  Pharisees  to  his  disciples  why  he  did  this,^  he 
said  that  "  the  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but  they 
that  are  sick."  While  the  self-righteous  Pharisees 
must  be  regarded  as  affected  with  moral  sickness 
equally  with  those  legally  unclean  persons  who  were 
the  objects  of  their  contempt,  the  answer  can  be 
interpreted  only  as  denoting  that  his  mission  was 
especially  to  the  latter.^ 

1  Matt.  ix.  11  f. ;  Mark  ii.  16  f. 

2  "To  Jesus  the  dangers  of  riches  to  the  moral-religious  life 
seemed  greater  than  the  dangers  of  poverty.  Hence  his  sharp 
words  against  the  deceitfulness  of  riches.  In  this  lowering  of 
property  to  its  true  vahie,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  its 
possessors  must  necessarily  become  peculiar.  Whoever  so  un- 
sparingly as  Jesus  attacks  the  respect  for  riches  cannot  at  any  time 
escape  the  charge  of  being  an  enemy  of  the  rich  and  of  inciting  the 
people  against  them.  Accordingly,  Jesus  was  censured  as  a  friend 
of  publicans  and  sinners,  and  how  much  part  in  the  charge  that 
he  was  a  bla3[)hemer  the  ill-humour  at  his  words  in  opposition 
to  the  rich  may  have  had  cannot  be  determined." — Kambli,  Das 


96  EICH  AND  POOK 

The  sympathy  with  "  sinners  "  on  the  part  of  a  free 
spirit,  irreconcilably  hostile  to  the  ritual  traditions  of 
the  time,  was  a  natural  expression  of  the  personality 
of  Jesus.  For  many  of  these  so-called  "sinners" 
were  simply  the  poor  who  were  unable  to  bear  the 
burdens  imposed  by  the  costly  ceremonial  of  the 
temple-service.  Unwilling  to  be  "praised  as  poor, 
but  actually  treated  as  beggars,"  they  "  simply  threw 
off  the  yoke  of  the  law,"  because  submission  to  it 
was  incompatible  with  their  existence.  But  to  live 
without  the  observance  of  the  law  was  in  the  opinion 
of  the  leading  classes  among  the  Jews  equivalent  to 
being  a  "  sinner."  "  Accursed  "  is  the  term  applied 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  to  the  people  that  "  know  not 
the  law.^  "  The  man  of  slender  means,  the  mechanic, 
the  day-labourer,  especially  the  peasant,  who  should 
venture  to  make  the  attempt,  must  very  soon  find 
that  such  requirements  as  those  concerning  the 
Sabbath  and  purification  bade  defiance  to  the  best 
will."  ^  What  more  natural  than  that  Jesus,  himself 
the  son  of  a  mechanic,  should  have  been  especially 
drawn  toward  these  people,  who  were  of  all  men 

Eigenthum  iin  Licht  des  Evangelvums,  1882,  in  "  Wissenscliaftl. 
Vorthigo  iiber  religiose  Fragen,  5te  Sannnl.  p.  61. 

'  John  vii.  49.     See  Holtzmann,  Ncutest.  Theol.  i.  p.  136. 

-  Brandt,  Die  evangelische  GescMchte  utid  dcr  Urs])rung  des 
ChristeiUhuins,  1893,  p.  464. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW        97 

most  likely  to  receive  with  joy  the  "  good  tidings  "  ? 
From  the  Pharisaic  point  of  view,  that  of  legal 
righteousness,  these  poor,  these  sinners,  could  have 
no  part  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  were  "the 
lost."  It  was  just  such  persons  that  Jesus  thought 
it  his  mission  to  seek  and  to  save.  He  knew  a 
better  righteousness  than  that  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees,  and  saw  in  these  social  outcasts  a  capacity 
for  it.  Let  them  come  to  him  and  find  rest,  these 
heavy-laden,  from  the  intolerable  burden  of  the 
hollow  righteousness  of  unfruitful  ritual  and  cere- 
mony. In  espousing  their  cause  he  was  following 
the  example  of  the  prophets. 

The  favourable  and  kindly  disposition  of  Jesus 
toward  poverty  and  his  antipathy  to  wealth  are 
indicated  in  his  keen  sense  of  the  perils  and  tempta- 
tions of  the  latter  and  his  disregard  of  the  moral 
dangers  and  disadvantages  of  the  former.^  The 
cares  and  solicitudes,  the  burdens  and  anxieties  of 
poverty  may  well  be  regarded  as  impediments  to  the 
spiritual  life.  Chains  of  iron  may  bind  a  man  to  the 
earth  as  well  as  chains  of  gold.  There  is,  however, 
no  record  of  any  word  spoken  by  Jesus  of  the 
temptations  of  poverty.  Perhaps  the  pathetic  help- 
lessness of  the  poor  man's  condition  restrained  him 

*  Titiua  calls  attention  to  this  fact,  and  after  him  Jacoby. 
7 


98  EICH  AND  POOE 

from  speaking  any  word  of  warning  against  its 
dangers.  The  rich  might,  if  they  would,  escape  the 
perils  of  their  riches  by  giving  them  as  alms  to  the 
poor.  His  ministry  was  primarily  to  the  poor,  for 
the  reason  doubtless  that  he  saw  in  them  a  disposition 
more  favourable  to  receive  it  and  make  it  fruitful 
than  that  of  the  rich.  Those  to  whom  the  present 
age  furnished  so  little  joy  and  such  meagre  consola- 
tion might  well  receive  with  alacrity  the  "good 
tidings"  of  the  age  to  come,  might  "repent,  and 
believe  in  the  good  news." 

Accordingly,  a  beatitude  is  pronounced  upon  the 
poor,  because  to  their  advantage  the  kingdom  of 
God  would  come.  In  Matthew  we  have  the  addition 
or  so-called  "gloss,"  "in  spirit"  (roS  Trvevixari). 
The  most  natural  sense  of  the  words  is  poverty  of 
spiritual  capacity — the  very  opposite  of  fitness  for 
the  kingdom.  Commentators  have  not  been  able  to 
agree  as  to  their  interpretation.  "  Destitute  of  the 
wealth  of  learning  and  intellectual  culture  which  the 
schools  afford,"  and  "conscious  of  their  spiritual 
need,"  are  meanings  to  which  the  words  do  not 
naturally  yield  themselves.  They  appear  to  be  an 
"  explanatory  addition  "  that  does  not  explain.^      A 

'  A  reason  for  thinking  that  the  words  rip  ivveifxaTL  did  not 
stand  in  some  of  the  ancient  manuscripts  is  found  in  the  fact  that 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW        99 

good  reason  for  regarding  them  as  a  gloss  from  the 
hand  of  the  evangelist  or  of  an  editor  or  even  of  a 
copyist  is  that  the  passage  without  them  has  a 
natural  place  in  the  historical  course  of  thought  and 
in  the  Jewish  literature.  For  as  B.  Weiss  remarks 
on  the  passage,  "  It  was  the  poor  who  according  to 
the  promise  of  the  Old  Testament  had  to  expect  the 
Messianic  blessedness,  because  among  the  poor  and 
wretched  of  the  people  the  genuine  theocratic  piety 
had  been  best  preserved." 

It  is  doubtless  correct  to  say  that  Matthew's  gloss 
"  spiritualises  Jesus'  saying  too  much,"  while  it  may 
be  questioned  whether,  if  the  words  are  in  fact  a 
gloss,  one  is  justified  in  giving  to  the  beatitude  the 
meaning,  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  who  are  humble  to  a 
degree  corresponding  to  their  poverty."  ^  Whoever 
may  be  responsible  for  the  rS  irvev/jLart,  the  words 
convey  the  opinion  that  Jesus  did  not  intend  to 
pronounce  a  blessing  upon  poverty  and  degradation 
as  such,  but  upon  the  poverty  that  yields  spiritual 
fruits,  perhaps  those  of  humility  and  self-sacrifice. 
This  opinion  may  have  the  weight  that  belongs  to  an 
ancient  interpretation  of  the  original  saying.      The 


Polycarp,  who  otherwise  "shows  imdeniabl}'  reference  to  Matthew," 
quotes  the  beatitude  without  them.     See  Titius,  p.  75. 
'  Titius,  p.  76,  so  renders  it. 


100  EICH  AND  POOE 

fact  that  Luke  reports  the  beatitude  without  the 
explanatory  words  presents  a  difficulty  to  the 
interpreter  in  which  theories  of  the  sources  furnish 
no  help.  If  the  beatitude  stood  in  the  source 
common  to  both  Gospels,  the  collection  of  the  say- 
ings of  Jesus,  we  have  no  data  for  determining 
whether  its  primitive  form  was  that  of  Luke  or  that 
of  Matthew.^  The  criticism  of  the  text  has,  however, 
derived  by  induction  the  principle  that  readings,  the 
tendency  of  which  is  to  remove  difficulties,  soften  a 
harsh  saying,  or  "  spiritualise "  a  passage  are  to  be 
suspected.^  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  two  versions 
were  derived  from  two  independent  sources,  it  is 
difficult  to  determine  which  should  have  the 
preference.  On  the  ground,  however,  of  Jesus' 
formal  declaration  both  in  Matthew  and  Luke  that 

*  See  the  writer's  article  on  "The  Synoptic  Question"  in  The 
New  World  for  September  1900,  p.  531  f. 

^  Dr.  Peabody  does  not,  however,  accept  this  critical  principle  : 
"Of  the  two  readings,  'Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,'  and 
'  Blessed  are  ye  poor,'  it  is  on  the  face  of  things  not  likely  that  the 
peculiar  depth  and  beauty  of  the  truth  which  the  first  passage 
expresses  should  be  a  gloss  upon  the  superficial,  not  to  say 
questionable,  teaching  of  the  second  passage "  [Jesus  Christ  aiid 
tJie  Social  Question,  1900,  p.  195).  "The  peculiar  depth  and  beauty" 
of  Matthew's  version  are  not,  however,  apparent  in  view  of  the  un- 
certainty as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  rip  irvev/xarL.  Whether, 
moreover,  Luke's  version  is  a  "  superficial,  not  to  say  questionable, 
teaching,"  the  reader  must  judge,  and  may  perhaps  be  lielped  to  a 
right  judgment  by  the  foregoing  considerations  as  to  Jesus'  attitude 
toward  the  poor. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      101 

his  mission  was  to  the  "poor"  without  any  such 
qualification  as  "  in  spirit,"  it  is  at  least  probable  that 
these  words  did  not  stand  in  the  beatitude  as 
originally  spoken. 

The  beatitudes  in  Matthew  have  been  characterised 
as  more  inward  and  spiritual  than  those  in  Luke, 
The  blessing  upon  those  that  "  hunger  now  "  in  Luke 
does  not  appear  in  Matthew,  but  instead  of  it  we 
read  here,  "  Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness."  Whether  such  variations  are 
due  to  different  sources  or  to  a  tendency  to 
"  spiritualise  "  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of  Matthew 
or  of  an  editor  of  the  Gospel  is  altogether  a  matter  of 
conjecture.  In  any  case,  although  in  Matthew  are 
wanting  the  harsh  words  against  the  rich,  this 
Gospel  has  preserved  no  compensating  beatitude  for 
the  rich.  There  is  nowhere  an  indication  that  Jesus 
looked  with  favour  upon  riches  or  upon  their 
possessors  as  having  any  affinity  for  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  rich  men  of  his  time  doubtless  showed  in 
general  no  qualities  that  could  commend  them  to  his 
favourable  judgment.  Zaccheus,  however,  who  gave 
half  his  goods  to  the  poor,  appears,  according  to  Luke, 
to  have  been  honoured  with  his  commendation.  Not 
even  between  the  lines  of  the  records  is  there  an 
indication  that  the  beneficent  uses  for  the  poor  that 


102  RICH  AND  POOR 

wealth  may  be  made  to  serve  in  an  industrial  and 
commercial  age  lay  within  the  scope  of  his  vision. 
Riches  and  rich  men,  as  he  knew  them,  belonged  to 
the  al(6v  ovTo<i,  the  pre-Messianic  age,  which  was 
full  of  wickedness.  He  saw  that  wealth  bound  men 
to  "  this  age,"  and  destroyed  the  sense  for  the  things 
of  the  age  to  come,  the  age  of  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
and  this  point  of  view  determined  his  attitude 
toward  it.  His  interests,  intensely  religious  as  they 
were,  lay  beyond  the  critical  line  that  the  hopes  of 
his  time  drew  between  the  two  great  world-periods. 
"  He  lived  in  the  conviction  that  yet  only  a  little 
while  would  this  world  take  its  further  course,  that 
soon  the  curtain  would  be  rolled  up  that  separated 
the  present  time  from  eternity."  ^ 

Accordingly,  we  have  respecting  riches  the  un- 
qualified prohibition,  preserved  in  Matthew  alone : 
"  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  the  earth, 
where  moth  and  rust  doth  consume,  and  where 
thieves  break  through  and  steal:  but  lay  up  for 
yourselves  treasures  in  heaven,  where  neither 
moth  nor  rust  doth  consume,  and  where  thieves 
do  not  break  through  nor  steal,  for  where  thy 
treasure  is,  there  will  thy  heart  be  also."  ^     Here  the 

^  Bossuet,  Die  Predigt  Jcsu  in  ihrem  Oegensatz  zum  Judenthum, 
1892,  p.  68.  =»  Matt.  vi.  19-21. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      103 

reason  given  for  not  laying  up  treasures  upon  earth, 
but  for  laying  them  up  rather  in  heaven,  indicates 
the  point  of  view,  and  gives  the  key  to  the  inter- 
pretation. The  danger  to  the  treasure  from  moth 
and  rust  and  thieves  is  only  an  incidental  matter. 
The  important  matter  is  that  the  heart  follows  the 
treasure.  He  whose  heart  is  bound  by  riches  to  this 
doomed  old  world  is  unfitted  for  the  new  celestial 
order  about  to  come.  He  has  not  the  mood  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  faith  in  the  Father  that  takes  no 
thought  for  the  morrow,  the  earnest  expectation  of 
the  new  age  of  eternal  life.  He  cares  for  none  of 
these  things,  because  he  feels  no  need  of  them,  filled 
as  he  is  with  his  sensuous  enjoyments.  The 
dominant  note  is  here  plainly  religious  ;  or  call 
it  eschatological,  if  you  will.  It  is  both.  To  Jesus 
the  two  were  one.  For  to  him  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  the  supreme  religious  good.  They  who  seek 
this  first  will  have  all  temporal  goods  "added  to" 
them  without  "  taking  thought "  for  them.^ 

As  religious,  then,  let  the  motif  of  these  words  be 
regarded.  It  is  hence  not  "sociological."  Jesus 
spoke  of  wealth  as  he  saw  it — a  canker  consuming 
the  souls  of  men,  not  of  wealth  as  it  might  become 
in     a    different    social    order    from     that    of    his 

»  Matt.  vi.  33. 


104  EICH  AND  POOR 

time — "  a  means  to  moral  ends,  the  foundation 
of  an  ethical  life-work,  the  instrument  of  good, 
wholesome  activity  in  the  service  of  the  God  of 
mankind."  It  is  no  contribution  to  the  understand- 
ing of  these  words  about  laying  up  treasures  to  say, 
as  Jacoby  does,  that  "  a  gathering  of  earthly  goods 
for  ethical  purposes,  accompanied  by  a  mood  of  free- 
dom, would  not  have  been  disapproved  of  by  Jesus." 
We  are  not  concerned  with  what  Jesus  would  say  as 
a  professor  of  theology  and  ethics  in  the  twentieth 
century,  with  the  opinions  about  possessions,  capital, 
and  trade  that  he  might  entertain  if  he  lived  in  our 
time,  and  had  the  views  of  the  world  that  pertain  to 
it.  Dr.  Jacoby,  however,  concedes  that  the  accumula- 
tion of  wealth  in  a  "  mood  of  freedom  "  from  its  en- 
chantments lay  outside  the  relations  that  Jesus  was 
judging.-^  The  reader  who  expects  from  him  a 
"  scientific  exegesis  "  cannot,  despite  this  concession, 
but  be  surprised  to  find  in  the  immediate  connection 
the  assertion  :  "  That  Jesus  actually  forbade  only  a 
qualified  laying  up  of  treasures,  a  laying  up  that 
recognises  in  earthly  possessions  a  supreme  good,  we 
learn  from  the  prohibition  of  a  double  service."  But 
what  Jesus  says  about  the  two-fold  service,  that  of 
God  and  Mammon,  can  have  no  other  meaning  in 

*  Neutcst.  Eihik,  p.  134. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      105 

the  context  of  the  passage  forbidding  the  accumula- 
tion of  earthly  possessions  than  that  just  this 
accumulation,  without  qualification,  is  incompatible 
with  such  a  service  of  God  as  he  deemed  essential 
from  his  religious  point  of  view.  "  Scientific 
exegesis"  is  not  promoted  by  reading  into  the 
solemn  words  of  Jesus  such  a  qualification  as, 
"  Every  laying  up  of  treasures  is  forbidden  by  Jesus, 
in  which  the  obligation  to  serve  God  alone  is 
prejudiced,  but  only  such  a  one."  In  fact,  such  an 
accumulation  "  lay  outside  the  relations  that  he  was 
judging." 

The  contention  is  doubtless  sound  that  Jesus  did 
not  regard  the  possession  of  earthly  goods  as  un- 
qualifiedly sinful,^  if  it  be  required  in  order  to 
establish  the  affirmative  to  indicate  a  passage  in 
which  such  a  declaration  is  directly  made.  If,  how- 
ever, one  cannot  innocently  hold  possessions  that 
prejudice  one's  salvation,  that  is,  the  attainment  of 
the  blessed  life  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  have  not 
far  to  seek  in  the  Gospels  to  find  an  unmistakable 
attitude  as  to  this  matter.  In  the  solemn  hour  at 
Csesarea  Philippi  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples :  "  If  any 
man  would  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and 
take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me.  For  whosoever  would 

*  Rogge,  Der  irdische  Besitz  im  neuen  Test.  p.  55. 


106  EICH  AND  POOE 

save  his  life  shall  lose  it :  and  whosoever  shall  lose 
his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it.  For  what  shall  a 
man  be  profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and 
forfeit  his  soul  ?  or  what  shall  a  man  give  in 
exchange  for  his  soul  ? "  ^  Here  the  fearful  implication 
is  unmistakable  that  the  gaining  of  vast  possessions 
imperils  the  soul  or  the  life  pertaining  to  the  king- 
dom. This  reference  is  vividly  indicated  by  the 
words  that  immediately  follow  :  "  For  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his 
angels ;  and  then  shall  he  render  unto  every  man 
according  to  his  deeds." 

The  hindrance  of  riches  to  the  attainment  of  the 
kingdom  is  more  explicitly  declared  in  Jesus'  answer 
to  the  rich  man  who  had  kept  the  commandments 
and  yet  asked  what  he  should  do  to  inherit  eternal 
life  :  "  If  thou  wouldest  be  perfect,  go,  sell  that  thou 
hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have 
treasure  in  heaven :  and  come,  follow  me."  The  key 
to  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  the  motive 


^  Matt.  xvi.  24-26.  The  rendering  of  the  revised  version, 
"life,"  is  here  misleading.  "In  the  pointed  aphorisms  of  Christ 
.  .  .  evpiaKetf,  aw^eiv,  d.TroWvi'aL  ttjv  ^pvxvv  avrov,  designate  as 
^vxv  in  one  of  the  antithetic  members  t/ie  life  that  is  lived  on  earth  ; 
in  the  others,  the  life  m  the  eternal  kingdom  of  God :  Matt.  x.  39  ; 
xvi.  25  f. ;  Mark  viii.  35-37;  Luke  ix.  24,  25  ;  xvii.  33."— Thayer's 
Lexicon,  sub  voce  ^vxv-  The  revised  version  renders  ^I'XV  ' '  soul  " 
in  Luke  xxi.  19  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  15  ;  and  Heb.  x.  39. 


y 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      107 

of  the  young  man's  question.  He  wished  to  know 
what  he  must  do  in  order  to  "  inherit  eternal  life." 
This  is  equivalent  to  asking  how  he  might  become  a 
sharer  in  the  blessedness  of  the  Messianic  kingdom 
that  was  the  object  of  the  ardent  hopes  of  his  people. 
There  is  no  intimation  in  his  question  that  he  wished 
to  become  an  immediate  follower  of  Jesus.  The 
answer  is  precisely  fitted  to  the  question  :  "  If  thou 
wilt  be  perfect,  sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the 
poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  [reward]  in 
heaven."  ^  The  version  in  Mark,  "  One  thing  thou 
lackest,"  is  to  the  same  effect,  that  is,  one  thing  is 
wanting  to  thy  perfection  or  qualification  for  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  injunction,  "Come,  follow  me,"  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  the  man  should  join  himself 
to  Jesus  as  a  disciple,  but  may  mean  that  he  should 
"  cleave  steadfastly  "  to  him,  or  "  follow  his  example."^ 
That  the  case  of  this  rich  man,  moreover,  was 
exceptional  in  the  sense  that  there  was  reason  for 
making  the  requirement  of  him  that  would  not  apply 
to  others  of  his  class,  is  not  intimated  in  the  passage 
or  in  its  connection.  Eather  the  injunction  to  sell 
his  goods  and  give  to  the  poor  appears  to  come  under 
the  general  principle  of  renunciation  expressed   in 

»  Matt.  xix.  16-25  ;  Mark  x.  17-26. 

'^  Matt.  X.  38  ;  xvi.  24  ;    John  xii.  26.     See  Thayer's  Lexicon, 
sv,b  voce  dKoXovOiu. 


108  RICH  AND  POOR 

the  commandment :  "  If  thy  hand  or  thy  foot  causeth 
thee  to  stumble,  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  from  thee ;  it  is 
good  for  thee  to  enter  into  life  [in  the  kingdom  of 
God]  maimed  or  halt,  rather  than  having  two  hands 
or  two  feet  to  be  cast  into  the  eternal  fire."  ^  For 
not  a  special  case,  but  a  general  principle,  is  plainly 
in  question  in  the  sequel,  where  Jesus  declares  of  all 
men  of  the  class  to  which  this  man  belonged :  "Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  It  is  hard  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  again  I  say  unto 
you,  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a  needle's 
eye,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."^     To  the  lust,  materialism,  and  selfishness  of 

1  Matt,  xviii.  8  ;  Mark  ix.  45,  47. 

^  Wendt  remarks  on  this  incident  that,  "Ifwe  take  into  account 
Jesus' general  religious  view  and  his  pregnant  manner  of  expressing 
himself,  we  must  judge  that  in  these  rough  requirements  of 
renunciation  he  only  wished  to  give  the  sharpest  possible  expression 
to  the  principle  that  his  disciples  must  rank  heavenly  goods 
absolutely  above  those  of  the  earth,  and  in  a  conflict  of  their  tasks 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  with  earthly  goods  they  must  uncondition- 
ally give  up  the  latter  in  order  not  to  lose  the  heavenly "  {Das 
Eigenthuin  nach  Christlicher  Beurthellung,  1898,  p.  100  f.).  By  this 
interpretation,  however,  the  scope  of  Jesus'  words  is  unwarrantably 
extended.  In  other  words,  there  is  read  into. them  a  thought  that 
is  altogether  foreign  to  their  original  purpose.  He  was  not  speak- 
ing of  heavenly  and  earthly  goods  in  respect  to  their  relation  to 
one  another,  or  of  the  subordination  of  the  latter  to  the  former.  In 
fact,  there  is  no  question  oi property  in  general  in  the  passage,  but 
only  of  wealth  and  its  perils.  Neither  is  there  any  hint  of  a 
conflict  between  earthly  goods  and  duties  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
The  one  and  only  concern  is  the  admittance  into  the  kingdom.  To 
this  wealth  constitutes  an  obstacle  that  man  cannot  overcome. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      109 

his  time,  Jesus  proclaimed  the  eternal  law  of  the 
spirit,  "  Through  death  to  life  ! "  He  who  would  find 
the  eternal  life  of  the  kingdom  of  God  must  lose  the 
life  that  belongs  to  the  world.  Both  no  one  could 
have,  and  the  fateful  choice  must  be  made.  One 
master  only !  Just  as  the  offending  eye  must  be 
plucked  out,  and  the  offending  hand  or  foot  cut  off, 
if  one  would  enter  into  the  light  and  glory  of  the 
kingdom  rather  than  be  cast  into  the  outer  darkness, 
so  the  offending  riches  must  be  cast  aside  in  the 
great  renunciation.  For  their  possessors  can  find 
admission  to  the  blessedness  of  the  glorious  seon 
about  to  come  only  by  a  miracle  of  divine  inter- 
vention. "With  men  this  is  impossible,  but  with 
God  all  things  are  possible." 

From  a  reluctance  to  admit  that  Jesus  required 
ricli  men  to  dispossess  themselves  of  their  wealth  as 
a  preparation  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  some  of  the 
scholars  who  have  discussed  this  subject  have 
endeavoured  to  show  that  he  taught  how  riches  may 
be  "  inwardly    overcome."  ^      The    parable    of    the 

'  So  Rogge,  Ber  irdische  Besitz,  p.  56  f.  Dr.  Peabody  finds  in 
Jesus'  teacbing  "indications  of  tbose  employments  of  money  tbat 
make  for  tbe  purposes  of  tbe  kingdom "  {Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Social  Queslimi,  pp.  217  ff.).  Money  could  certainly  not  contribute 
to  the  advent  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  so  far  as  we  learn  from  Jesus' 
words  anything  about  the  manner  of  its  coming.  It  was  already 
"at  hand,"  and  might,  indeed,  at  most  be  prayed  for.     After  it 


no  EICH  AND  POOR 

talents'  has  been  interpreted  in  this  interest  as 
relating  to  the  right  employment  of  earthly  posses- 
sions, and  teaching  that  he  who  makes  a  good  use  of 
the  goods  entrusted  to  him  receives  more  because  he 
has  shown  himself  efficient  in  the  service  of  God. 
"  Thus  worldly  goods  serve  tlie  purposes  of  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  only  he  who  makes  them  fruitful  to 
this  end  can  in  truth  increase  them."  ^  This  appli- 
cation of  the  parable,  however,  proceeds  upon  a  mis- 
interpretation of  it.  The  teaching  of  the  parable  is 
simply  fidelity  and  responsibility  to  God  in  view,  as 
appears  from  the  context  both  in  Matthew  and  Luke, 
of  the  great  accounting  at  the  end  of  the  age.  The 
money  given  to  the  servants  and  the  use  made  of  it 
are  the  illustrative  material  of  the  parable.  If  the 
use  of  wealth  be  regarded  as  the  leading  thought, 
then  all  else  must  be  subordinated  to  that  teaching, 
and  the  lesson  becomes  simply  that  one  ought  to 
strive  for  riches !  He  who  doubles  his  wealth  re- 
ceives the  divine  approval !  He  who  does  not  strive 
for  riches  is  cast  into  the  outer  darkness  !  On  the 
contrary,  the  true  sense  of  the  parable,  as  stated  by 

should  have  come,  would  they  who  should  be  "accounted  worthy 
to  attain  to  that  age  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  the 
la-dyyeXoi,  living  in  the  glory  of  the  iraXiyyei^eala,  liave  any  use  for 
money  ? 

1  Matt.  XXV.  14-30. 

^  B.  Weiss,  Leben  Jesn,  ii.  69. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      111 

the  most  competent  expounder  of  this  sort  of  teach- 
ing, is :  "  Reward  is  given  only  for  performances. 
He  alone  who  makes  the  best  use  of  God's  gifts  may 
count  on  receiving  the  highest  and  last  gift.  Doing 
nothing  excludes,  despite  all  excuses,  from  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  ^ 

Jesus'  words  regarding  the  use  of  the  precious 
ointment  on  the  occasion  of  the  anointing  in  Bethany 
have  been  thought  to  denote  his  attitude  toward  the 
employment  of  wealth.^  The  question  of  the 
disciples,  "To  what  purpose  is  this  waste?"  denoting  a 
narrow  mind  without  susceptibility  for  the  touching 
devotion  of  the  woman,  is  answered  by  Jesus  with  a 
mild  reproof.  Thereby  he  expressed  the  response 
of  a  beautiful  soul  to  the  charming  adoration  lavished 
upon  him.  That  he  could  have  mingled  with  this 
precious  incense  a  thought  about  the  uses  of  money 
is  incredible.  Yet  Rogge  is  moved  to  remark  that 
by  his  rebuke  of  the  disciples  Jesus  "  ennobled  an 
employment  of  money  and  possessions  that  at  the  first 
sight  appears  rather  as  a  luxury  and  useless  than 

*  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  1899,  p.  495.  The  com- 
mendation of  the  faithful  servants  was  not  bestowed  because  they 
had  used  wealth  for  "purposes  that  make  for  the  kingdom,"  as  if 
the  doubling  of  their  money  could  contribute  to  this  end,  but  for 
their  fidelity. 

2  Matt.  xxvi.  6-13  ;  Mark  xiv.  3-9.  The  view  mentioned  in  the 
text  is  taken  by  Kogge,  and  after  him  by  Peabody, 


112  EICH  AND  POOR 

useful,  but  that  is  really  to  be  measured  by  another 
standard.^  Dr.  Peabody,  not  to  be  outdone  by  his 
German  predecessor  in  this  sort  of  interpretation, 
finds  here  "the  charter  of  all  undertakings  that 
propose  in  the  name  of  Christ  to  feed  the  mind,  to 
stir  the  imagination,  to  quicken  the  emotions,  to 
make  life  less  meagre,  less  animal,  less  dull."  Thus 
"  all  expenditure  of  money  on  art,  on  education,  on 
music  .  .  .  rests  on  the  explicit  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ."  ^  To  draw  such  far-reaching  conclusions 
from  Jesus'  acceptance  of  the  affectionate  devotion 
of  a  woman  and  his  rebuke  of  the  insensibility  and 
ineptness  that  could  intrude  upon  such  a  scene  with 
reflections  about  economy,  is  to  put  a  severe  strain 
upon  legitimate  biblical  interpretation. 

Whatever  may  now  be  thought  of  almsgiving 
by  those  who  have  thoroughly  studied  the  social 
question,  Jesus  evidently  regarded  it  as  meritorious. 
It  was  good  for  the  soul  of  a  rich  man  to  get  rid 
of  his  wealth  in  this  way.  The  man  of  "great 
possessions,"  who  had  kept  the  commandments  from 
his  youth,  is  told  that  by  selling  his  goods  and  giving 
the  money  to  the  poor  he  might  become  "  perfect." 
To  do  this  was  to  supply  the  one  thing  lacking  to 

*  Der  irdische  Besitz,  p.  61.     But  where  in  the  story  is  anything 
of  the  kind  so  mucli  as  intimated  ? 

*  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Social  Question,  pp.  220  fl'. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      113 

his  fitness  for  "  eternal  life  "  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
If  he  did  not  do  this,  he  could  be  "  saved  "  only  by  a 
miracle.  It  were  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through 
a  needle's  eye  than  for  him  to  enter  into  the  king- 
dom. Nothing  is  said  of  the  effect  of  such  a  disposal 
of  riches  upon  the  poor  or  upon  society  at  large. 
No  account  appears  to  have  been  taken  of  this 
matter.  Eather  the  indications  are  that  the  direc- 
tion sprang  out  of  a  spontaneous  sympathy  for  the 
poor,  so  far  as  the  destination  of  the  hindrance  to  be 
got  rid  of  is  concerned,  and  was  not  based  upon  any 
well-considered  method  of  beneficence. 

In  the  later  Judaism,  almsgiving  assumed  so  much 
importance  that  it  came  to  be  synonymous  with 
"righteousness,"  and  a  "propitiatory  virtue"  was 
ascribed  to  it.  Accordingly,  in  writings  nearly 
contemporary  with  Jesus  are  found  such  sayings 
as  :  "  Shut  up  mercy  ^  in  thy  treasuries,  and  it  shall 
deliver  thee  from  all  affliction " ;  "  Alms  delivereth 
from  death."  ^  Similar  ideas  abound  in  the  later 
Jewish  ethics :  "  Through  alms  a  man  becomes  a 
partaker  of  eternal  life " ;  "  He  who  gives  alms  is 
regarded  as  one  who  has  fulfilled  all  commandments," 
and  many  more  of  like  character.^     No  saying  of 

'  iXeT]iJ.oavvijv .  *  Ecclus.  xxix.  12  ;  Tobit  iv.  10. 

'  See  Weber,  Dicjudischc  Thcologic,  1897,  pp.  284  tl'. 

8 


114  RICH  AND  POOR 

precisely  the  import  of  these  is  ascribed  to  Jesus, 
although  the  idea  of  attaining  perfection  by  selling 
one's  goods  and  giving  the  proceeds  to  the  poor 
borders  upon  it.  The  thought  of  a  relation  of  man 
to  God  of  the  nature  of  a  compact,  according  to 
which  a  man  might  by  almsgiving  buy  himself  the 
privilege  of  indulgence,  was  foreign  to  him.  He 
regarded  good  works  as  the  spontaneous  fruit  of  trust 
and  love.  To  be  kind  like  God  was  the  highest 
achievement. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  we  find  no  other  use 
of  riches  recommended  by  Jesus  than  just  this  of 
almsgiving.  By  means  of  it,  according  to  the  passage 
in  Luke  ^  already  referred  to  in  a  foregoing  chapter, 
the  followers  of  Jesus  might  procure  for  themselves 
"  a  treasure  in  heaven  that  faileth  not,"  that  is,  goods 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  that  would  be  put  to  their 
account  as  a  reward  for  their  beneficence.  Thus  by 
selling  that  they  have  and  giving  alms  they  separate 
their  heart  from  "  this  age  "  and  place  it  where  their 
treasure  is,  in  "  the  age  to  come."  In  Matthew 
almsgiving  is  recognised  and  regulated  so  far  as 
ostentation  in  the  act  is  forbidden.  "Let  not  thy 
left  hand  know  what  thy  right  hand  doeth."  The 
alms  given  in  secret  the  "  Father  who  seeth  in  secret " 

1  Chap.  xii.  33, 


THE  TEACHING   IN  MATTHEW      115 

will  note,  and  will  "  recompense  "  the  giver.^  Alms- 
giving has,  accordingly,  the  divine  approval,  and  the 
divine  recompense  will  be  given  in  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

A  dramatic  representation  of  the  Messianic  judg- 
ment at  the  end  of  the  age  upon  those  who  have  done 
works  of  beneficence  and  those  who  have  neglected 
to  do  them  is  given  by  the  writer  of  Matthew.^ 
While  he  has  doubtless  not  reproduced  actual  words 
of  Jesus,  the  fundamental  .thought  of  the  passage 
corresponds  to  the  saying  about  the  certain  reward 
for  a  cup  of  cold  water.^  The  curtain  is  rolled  up, 
behind  which  lie  all  the  terrors  and  all  the  ecstasies 
of  the  close  of  the  great  drama  of  "  this  age."  The 
Son   of  Man   has  come  in  his  glory  with  all  the 

'  Matt.  vi.  1-4.  "Always  and  everywhere  in  Christianity  the 
benevolent  giving  of  possessions  to  the  distressed  has  been  regarded 
as  a  specific  proof  of  Christian  love.  This  is  quite  right.  The 
spontaneous,  helping  Christian  love  that  asks  no  questions  about 
right  and  requital  is  especially  manifested  in  the  gift  of  bene- 
volence. But  is  the  duty  of  placing  one's  possessions  wholly  in 
the  service  of  love  fulfilled  in  almsgiving  ?  May  we  regard  the 
greatest  intensifying  of  this  sort  of  giving  as  the  Christian  ideal  ? 
No.  Almsgiving  must  be  kept  within  certain  limits,  not  because 
Christian  love  should  be  limited,  but  because  Christian  love  itself 
prescribes  these  limits  "  (Wendt,  Das  Eigenthum  nach  Christlicher 
Beurtheilung,  1898,  p.  119).  The  "limits"  are,  however,  read  into 
the  teaching  of  Jesus.  They  are  not  even  implied  in  the  injunction 
to  sell  what  one  has  and  give  alms  (Luke  xii.  33).  The  difference 
is  manifest  between  the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  modifica- 
tions of  it  that  reflection  and  experience  lead  men  to  make. 

2  Chap.  XXV.  31-46.  ^  ^att.  x.  42. 


116  KICH  AND  POOK 

angels,  and  is  seated  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory. 
All  nations  are  gathered  before  him,  and  he 
separates  them  one  from  another.  On  his  right 
hand  are  placed  the  "blessed"  of  his  Father,  who 
are  to  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world.  On  his  left  hand  are 
the  "  cursed,"  who  are  to  be  consigned  to  the  eternal 
fire.  What  is  the  principle  of  the  fateful  separation  ? 
What  is  the  standard  of  the  aionian  judgment  ?  The 
declaration  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel  that  the 
good  news  was  for  the  poor,  the  sick,  and  the 
prisoners  is  confirmed  at  the  end  of  it  amidst  the 
lurid  terrors  of  the  great  assize.  The  "  blessed  "  are 
those  alone  who  have  been  kind  to  the  "  brethren " 
of  the  Judge,  "even  these  least,"  who  have  given 
them  food  when  hungry,  clothed  them  when  naked, 
visited  them  when  sick  or  in  prison,  offered  them 
a  cup  of  water  when  thirsty,  or  opened  the  door  of 
hospitality  to  them  as  strangers.  Those  on  the  left 
hand,  doomed  to  exclusion  from  the  kingdom,  having 
no  inheritance  in  it,  because  they  have  laid  up  no 
treasures  there,  are  such  as  have  neglected  these 
ministrations  of  charity.  The  selfish,  the  worldly, 
the  hard-hearted — these  are  the  chaff  that  the  terrible 
winnowing-shovel  prophesied  by  John  separates  from 
the  wheat  garnered  for  the  blessedness  of  the  age  to 


THE  TEACHING  IN  MATTHEW      11 V 

come.  If  any  one  thinks  this  to  be  an  incomplete, 
one-sided  judgment,  let  him  reflect  that  the  picture 
intensifies  an  aspect  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  that  lay 
very  near  his  heart — the  proclaiming  of  the  good 
news  to  the  unfortunate  children  of  men  to  whom 
unpitying  fate  or  a  heartless  world  had  denied  every 
other  consolation. 


CHAPTER    V 


THE  TEACHING   IN   LUKE 


Mention  has  been  made  in  a  foregoing  chapter  of 
the  intensification  in  Luke  of  some  of  Jesus'  sayings 
regarding  the  rich  and  poor  recorded  in  Matthew, 
together  with  the  fact  that  the  former  Gospel  has 
considerable  material  relating  to  the  social  question 
that  is  not  found  in  the  latter.  The  fact  that,  besides 
this  particular  material,  Luke  has  narratives,  parables, 
and  sayings  of  Jesus  that  are  not  in  the  first  Gospel, 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  author  of  it  had 
a  source  or  sources  not  employed  by  the  writer  of 
Matthew.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  as  has 
already  been  pointed  out,  that  one  of  his  sources  was 
characterised  by  a  decided  sympathy  with  poverty 
and  antipathy  to  wealth.  A  question  arises  here 
that  fascinates  the  student  by  its  elusive  character — 
that  of  the  comparative  credibility  of  this  source. 
The  interest  in  this  question  is  intensified  when  we 

118 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  119 

find  different  reports  of  the  same  sayings  in  the  two 
records,  such  as  are  the  conflicting  recensions  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

There  is  little  prospect  of  a  satisfactory  solution 
of  the  problem  here  presented.  If,  for  example, 
the  two  beatitudes,  "Blessed  are  ye  poor"  (Luke), 
and  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit "  (Matthew),  and 
"  Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger  now "  (Luke),  and 
"  Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness"  (Matthew),  were  derived  by  both 
writers  from  the  source  probably  used  by  both,  the 
logia,  or  collection  of  sayings  of  Jesus,  they  must 
have  had  different  recensions  of  the  collection,  or 
one  must  have  changed  these  beatitudes  by  omissions 
or  additions.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Luke  had  another 
source,  he  must  have  preferred  it  although  know- 
ing it  to  be  contrary  to  the  logia.  That  the  four 
beatitudes  were  in  the  logia,  and  that  Luke  selected 
the  two  that  relate  to  outward  conditions,  while 
Matthew  reported  those  that  have  reference  to  a 
spiritual  state,  is  altogether  improbable.  Which  of 
the  two  versions  of  this  part  of  the  celebrated 
discourse  is  "  original "  is  a  question  on  which  the 
most  competent  differ,  and  few  can  give  convincing 
reasons. 

It  certainly  contributes  nothing  to  the  solution  of 


120  RICH  AND  POOE 

the  problem  to  declare  dogmatically,  in  respect  to 
the  tendency  in  primitive  Christianity  toward  anti- 
pathy to  wealth  and  sympathy  with  the  poor,  that 
"a  series  of  sayings  of  Jesus  in  this  direction  have 
been  forged  in  Luke's  Gospel,"  -^  or  that  Jesus'  attitude 
regarding  the  matter  has  been  given  a  "coarse" 
expression  in  this  Gospel.^  Even  J.  Weiss  contents 
himself  with  simply  declaring  that  Luke's  version  of 
the  beatitudes  in  question  is  "certainly  not  the 
original  form,"  and  adds  that  in  deciding  what  are 
the  genuine  beatitudes,  that  is,  the  ones  actually 
spoken  by  Jesus  in  this  connection,  one  must  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  "  Luke  or  his  source  has 
selected  in  a  rather  mechanical  manner  only  those 
that  relate  to  conditions  of  external  distress  "  ^ — as 
if  both  series  of  beatitudes  had  been  spoken  and 
recorded  together,  and  Luke  or  his  source  had 
"  selected  "  those  regarding  outward  conditions.  Are 
we,  then,  to  regard  both  series  as  original,  and  the 
two  records  as  supplementing  each  other  ?  In  that 
case  what  becomes  of  the  question.  Which  are  the 
"  genuine  "  beatitudes  ?  Weizsiicker,  while  regarding 
Luke's  version  of  the  Sermon  the  same  that  he  found 
in  his  source,  thinks  it  a  later  revision  of  that  in 

^  Bossuet,  Die  Predigt  Jesu,  p.  47. 

*  Titius,  Die  neittest.  Lehre  von  der  SeligJceit,  p.  77. 

'  See  Jleyer's  Cummcntar  on  Luke,  p.  388. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  121 

Matthew,  because  it  contains  fewer  beatitudes.^  But 
why  should  not  the  version  having  the  more  beati- 
tudes be  judged  the  later  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  maintained  that  the 
report  in  Matthew  cannot  present  the  original  state 
of  the  Sermon,  because  "  it  unites  in  an  artistic  con- 
struction various  sayings  of  Jesus  met  with  elsewhere 
in  Matthew  in  a  more  natural  connection,  and  also 
placed  by  Luke  in  different  settings."^  On  the 
ground,  moreover,  that  the  beatitudes  in  Luke  have 
no  reference  to  the  conditions  of  entering  the  king- 
dom, while  the  most  of  Matthew's  have,  and  some 
have  not,  the  originality  of  the  former  is  argued.  In 
Luke  the  emphasis  falls  on  the  luorth  of  the  salvation 
of  the  kingdom,  and  those  who  in  "this  age"  are 
unfortunate  are  pronounced  blessed  on  account  of 
their  prospective  participation  in  that  salvation. 
The  woes  that  in  Luke  are  pronounced  on  the  rich 
and  fortunate  are  in  accord  with  this  point  of  view, 
since  "  they  signify  that  earthly  happiness  is  no  true 
happiness."^  Luke's  version  accordingly  presents 
a  unity  that  is  favourable  to  the  hypothesis  of  its 
originality. 

An  easy  method  of  solving  the  problem,  by  cutting 

*  Das  apostol.  Zeitalter.  2te  Aufl.  p.  389. 

*  Holtzmaun,  Handcommentar,  1889,  p.  101. 

'  Weudt,  Die  Lehre  Jesu,  i.  pp.  53  f. 


122  RICH  AND  POOR 

rather  than  untying  the  knot,  is  to  assume  that 
besides  the  logia  Luke  had  an  independent  document 
containing  a  discourse  spoken  on  some  other  occasion, 
but  so  like  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  to  be 
identified  with  it  by  him.  "The  Sermon  in  Luke 
is,  therefore,  a  compound  of  the  reports  of  two  similar 
but  different  discourses  ;  and  in  this  compound  the 
elements  derived  from  the  logia  are  dominated  by 
those  derived  from  the  independent  document."^ 
And  again  :  "  It  seems  simpler  to  suppose  that  Luke 
took  the  whole  of  his  report  from  the  document  that 
contained  this  very  similar,  but  different  Sermon."  ^ 
It  appears,  then,  highly  probable  that  the  beatitudes 
and  woes  reported  in  Luke  were  actually  spoken  by 
Jesus.  Whether  Luke's  source  was  the  logia,  which 
was  altered  and  enlarged  by  the  writer  of  Matthew,  or 
another  and  "  independent "  one,  the  credibility  of 
his  record  is  supported  by  his  declaration  in  his 
prologue  that  he  had  "  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first."  Favourable  to  the 
originality  of  the  report  of  the  Sermon  in  Luke  is, 
moreover,  the  contention  that  this  Gospel  was 
written   prior   to   that    according    to    Matthew — a 


*  Sanday,  Expositor,  April  1891,  p.  315. 

'^  Plumer,  A  Critical  ami  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the  Oospel 
of  Luke,  1896,  p.  177. 


THE  TEACHING   IN  LUKE  123 

position    that     has    many    considerations     in     its 
favour.^ 

The  beatitudes  were  addressed  to  the  "disciples," 
not  merely  the  twelve  apostles,  who  had  just 
previously  been  chosen  from  the  larger  number  of 
followers.^  "Blessed  are  ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the 
kingdom  of  God."  The  use  of  the  second  person  is 
regarded  as  favourable  to  the  originality  of  Luke's 
report  in  contrast  with  the  vaguer  and  more  general 
third  person  in  Matthew.  The  unqualified  "  [ye]  the 
poor"  (ol  TTTfo^ol)  can  mean  only  the  poor  in 
worldly   possessions.      These    are    declared    to    be 

'  See  Pfleiderer,  Das  Urchristenthum  and  J.  Weiss,  Meyer's 
Commentar  on  Luke.  With  resjject  to  tlie  assumed  special  source 
of  the  third  Gospel,  Soltau  remarks  that  it  must  with  "  necessity  " 
be  concluded  from  the  facts  in  the  case  that  the  third  evangelist, 
who  was  "a  gentile  Christian  without  a  specially  prominent 
partisan  point  of  view,"  had  the  beatitudes  in  a  Jewish-Christian 
revision,  which  ascribed  an  exceptional  worth  to  poverty  and 
promised  a  reward  to  external  works  {Unsere  Evangelien,  ihre 
Quellen  und  ihr  Quellenwerth,  1901,  p.  45).  It  may  be  questioned, 
however,  whether  the  assumed  "revision"  must  be  conceded  to 
have  rendered  the  source  untrustworthy,  and  whether  the  pains- 
taking author  of  the  third  Gospel  would  have  been  likely  to 
employ  a  recension  of  the  logia  that  did  not  contain  the  actual 
teaching  of  Jesus.  Soltau  concedes  that  the  greater  originality  is 
sometimes  on  the  side  of  Luke,  and  that  "his  source  alone 
furnished  a  series  of  the  most  excellent  parables  and  sayings  of 
Jesus — the  gospel  of  the  poor  and  abandoned,  of  the  Samaritans 
and  sinners."  It  should  bo  borne  in  mind  in  this  connection  that 
Luke's  beatitude  for  the  poor  is  in  accord  with  Jesus'  words, 
recorded  in  Matthew  :  "The  poor  have  the  good  tidings  preached 
to  them." 

2  Luke  vi.  20  f. ;  cf.  verse  13  f. 


124  EICH  AND  POOK 

"  blessed  "  as  'poor  and  as  disciples — as  poor  disciples. 
The  reason  for  the  beatitude  is,  "for  yours  is  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  in  accordance  with  the  Old 
Testament  promise  of  the  Messianic  blessedness  to 
the  poor  and  wretched.  There  appears  to  be  implied 
here  a  strong  sympathy  of  Jesus  with  the  poor, 
doubtless  based  on  the  recognition  of  a  special 
susceptibility  on  their  part  to  his  message.  At  a 
time  when  all  the  people  were  looking  for  the  advent 
of  the  kingdom,  the  most  intense  longing  for  it  must 
have  been  felt  by  those  for  whom  this  world  had  so 
little  joy.  Hence  the  special  beatitude  for  the  poor, 
whose  predisposition  for  the  kingdom,  proceeding 
from  their  poverty,  renders  them  "  blessed."  In  the 
kingdom  they  will  have  their  eternal  compensation, 
just  as  in  Mary's  song  those  of  low  degree  are  to  be 
exalted.^ 

The  next  beatitude  requires  a  similar  interpreta- 
tion. It  is  pronounced  upon  the  disciples  before 
Jesus,  who  by  reason  of  their  poverty  are  hungry 
now  {pi  ireivwvTe^  vvv).  These  words,  like  "  the 
poor "  in  the  first  beatitude,  are  to  be  taken  in  the 
literal  sense.  They  hunger  for  want  of  the  necessary 
physical  nutriment.  The  promise,  "ye  shall  be 
filled,"  must  also  be  understood  literally,  and  not,  as 

*  TliL'  Tairtivol,  chap.  i.  52. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  125 

Plumer  will  have  it,  of  "  the  spiritual  abundance  in 
the  kingdom  of  God."  Nothing  of  the  kind  is 
indicated  in  the  passage  or  its  connection.  The 
words  are  an  echo  of  those  in  the  song  of  Mary : 
"  The  hungry  hath  he  filled  with  good  things."  In 
the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  to  be  established 
upon  the  renewed  earth,  the  "good  things"  would 
not  be  lacking.^  We  should  be  on  our  guard  against 
substituting  our  idea  of  the  kingdom  for  that  of 
Jesus  and  his  contemporaries,  and  against  intruding 
spiritual  or  figurative  meanings  where  they  are 
not  required  or  justified  by  the  context.  If  the 
promise  is  to  be  understood  to  mean  "spiritual" 
satisfaction,  then  "ye  that  hunger"  should  be 
interpreted,  "  ye  that  spiritually  hunger."  Nothing 
could  be  more  inept  than  to  declare  a  literally 
hungry  man  blessed  as  hungry,  because  he  is  going 
to  be  spiritually  fed  ! 

In  the  same  vein  of  sympathy  with  the  un- 
happy, the  victims  of  adverse  fortune,  a  beatitude  is 
next  pronounced  upon  the  sorrowing :  "  Blessed  are 
ye  that  weep  now :  for  ye  shall  laugh."  In  the  kingdom 
of  God  the  unfortunate,  who  now  cry  out  (ol  KkalovTe<i 
vvv)  on  account  of  their  grief  and  wretchedness,  will 
outwardly  express  their  joy  in  laughter.      Perhaps 

^  Sec  Matt.  viii.  11  ;  xxvi.  29  ;  Luke  xxii.  30. 


126  KICK  AND  POOR 

no  more  appropriate  word  than  "  laugh  "  could  be  set 
over  against  "  weep,"  and  it  has  the  appearance  of 
hypercriticism  to  say,  as  J.  Weiss  does,  that  the 
former  term  indicates  "  the  coarse  expression  of  the 
whole."  The  word  occurs  frequently  in  the  Old 
Testament  poetry,  and  even  God  is  said  to  laugh.'^ 

The  last  beatitude  is  the  only  one  that  mentions 
suffering  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  and  it  recalls 
Matthew's  blessing  on  those  persecuted  "  for 
righteousness'  sake."  The  separation  has  reference 
to  excommunication  from  the  synagogue,  and  perhaps 
exclusion  from  daily  intercourse.  Let  them  "  rejoice 
and  leap  for  joy "  in  view  of  the  great  and  blessed 
"  reward  "  that  is  reserved  for  them  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  or  rather  that  is  reserved  in  heaven  against 
the  establishment  of  the  kingdom,  when  they  will 
enter  upon  the  enjoyment  of  it. 

Following  these  four  beatitudes  are  four  woes, 
each  the  direct  antithesis  of  each  of  the  beatitudes — 
a  woe  for  the  rich,  for  those  that  have  abundance  of 
food,  for  those  that  laugh  now,  and  for  those  that  are 
well  spoken  of  by  all  men.  These  must  be  regarded 
as  addressed  to  the  rich  and  prosperous  in  general, 
the  rich  of  the  time,  and  not  necessarily  to  any 
present  at  the  moment,  least  of  all  to  the  disciples. 

^  Psa.  ii.  4  ;  xxxvii.  I'd  ;  cxxvi.  1,  2. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  127 

This  appears  to  be  the  intention  of  the  writer,  to 
whom  the  literary  form  must  be  ascribed,  since  in 
verse  27  he  denotes  a  return  to  those  present  by  the 
words,  "  But  I  say  unto  you  that  hear."  The  woe  is 
pronounced  upon  the  rich  because  they  have  received 
their  consolation.  They  have  had  their  "good 
things "  in  "  this  age,"  like  the  rich  man  in  the 
parable.  In  the  blessedness  of  "  the  age  to  come  " 
they  will  not  have  a  part  along  with  the  poor.  "  How 
hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  !  " 

As  to  those  that  "  are  full  now,"  a  woe  is  pro- 
nounced upon  them,  to  the  eftect  that  they  will 
hunger.  They  too  have  had  their  good  things,  and 
there  is  no  consolation  for  them  in  the  age  to  come. 
Will  they  perhaps  be  of  those  who  will  find  them- 
selves "cast  forth  into  the  outer  darkness,"  when 
"  many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and 
shall  recline  [at  table]  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  V  In  like  manner 
the  great  requital  of  the  Messianic  age  will  change 
into  weeping  the  laughter  of  those  who  rejoice  in  the 
fulness  of  earthly  goods,  and  an  unnamed  judgment  is 
reserved  for  the  believers  of  whom  those  (the  Jews) 
speak  well  whose  fathers  flattered  the  false  prophets. 

^  Matt.  viii.  11  f. 


128  RICH  AND  POOR 

One  cannot  but  be  impressed  with  the  limitation 
that  attaches  to  these  beatitudes  and  woes — the  few 
classes  of  men  on  whom  blessings  and  woes  are 
respectively  pronounced,  and  the  few  qualities,  good 
and  bad,  that  are  included  in  the  approval  and  the 
denunciation.  Certainly  these  men  cannot  have  been 
all  the  best  and  the  worst  of  their  time  known  to 
Jesus.  Of  all  the  fragmentary  reports  of  the  sayings 
of  Jesus  preserved  in  the  Gospels  this  fragment  is 
the  most  unsatisfactory.  It  appears  to  have  been 
inserted  in  a  quite  one-sided  interest,  the  interest 
that  in  Luke's  source  had  a  predominant  importance 
— that  of  showing  Jesus'  attitude  to  have  been 
friendly  to  the  poor.  This  supposition  is  supported 
by  the  fact  that  the  beatitudes  and  woes  are  declared 
for  the  poor  and  hungry  and  unhappy,  and  against 
the  rich  and  well-fed  and  jovial  for  no  other  reason, 
expressed  or  implied,  than  that  the  respective 
conditions  are  on  the  one  hand  unfortunate  and  on 
the  other  prosperous. 

A  series  of  sayings  peculiar  to  Luke,  concluding 
with  a  "parable,"  or  more  properly  a  narrative 
furnishing  an  example,^  may  well  be  considered  here, 
since  the  section  is  evidently  intended  to  show 
Jesus'  attitude  toward  wealth  and  its  possessors. 
1  Luke  xii.  13-21. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  129 

After  refusing  to  act  as  "  a  judge  or  a  divider  "  in  a 
contest  of  two  brothers  over  an  inheritance,  Jesus 
admonishes  his  hearers :  "  Take  heed,  and  keep 
yourselves  from  all  covetousness,^  for  a  man's  life 
consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  that  he 
possesseth,"  that  is,  life,  so  far  as  it  is  concerned  with 
earthly  possessions,  is  not  dependent  on  the  abun- 
dance of  them,  is  not  of"  these  things,  which  can  give 
it  neither  value  nor  permanence.^  This  is  shown  by 
the  well-known  illustrative  story  of  the  rich  man 
who  could  find  no  place  to  store  his  abundant 
harvests,  and  who  said  to  his  soul,  "  Soul,  thou  hast 
much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years  ;  take  thine  ease, 
eat,  drink,  and  be  merry."  But  God  calls  him  a 
fool,  and  says  to  him  that  this  night  his  soul  is 
required  of  him,^  "  So  is  he  that  layeth  up  treasure 
for  himself,  and  is  not  rich  toward  God." 

The  lesson  of  the  narrative  is  to  show  the  folly  of 
the  fancied  security  in  riches  that  leaves  God  and 
one's  responsibility  to  Him  out  of  account.     In  the 

'  TrXeoj'e^i'a,  greed,  avarice. 

^  See  Psa.  xlix.  11,  20  :  "They  call  their  lands  after  their  own 
names.  .  ,  .  Man  that  is  in  honour,  and  understandeth  not,  is  like 
the  beasts  that  perish." 

*  "  When  he  says,  Now  I  can  give  myself  rest, 
And  now  will  I  consume  my  goods, 
lie  knows  not  how  nmch  time  still  remains  for  him, 
And  he  must  leave  it  to  others,  and  die." — Ecclus.  xi.  19. 
9 


130  EICH  AND  POOE 

sudden  death  and  disappointment  of  the  rich  man  is 
distinctly  indicated  the  divine  disapproval  of  the 
accumulation  of  riches  with  the  sole  intention  to 
"  fare  sumptuously,"  and  of  "  the  greed,  the  boundless 
selfishness  of  which  forgets  all  duties  to  the  poor,  in 
whom  God  comes  near  to  us,"^  If  the  greed  and 
selfishness  here  condemned  are  not  conceived  as 
inseparable  from  wealth,  they  are  at  least  regarded 
as  perils  attendant  upon  it,  against  which  men  need 
to  be  warned.  The  concluding  words  of  the  section 
indicate  that  those  who  escape  the  fearful  fate  of 
this  man,  which  we  may  read  between  the  lines  to 
have  been  that  of  the  rich  man  at  whose  gate 
Lazarus  lay,  are  such  as  are  "  rich  toward  God  "  (et? 
6e6v),  who  devote  their  lives  to  God's  purposes, 
who  give  alms,  and  make  for  themselves  a  trea- 
sure in  the  heavens  that  faileth  not.  To  them 
the  Judge  will  say  on  the  great  day,  "  Come,  ye 
blessed  of  my  Father,  and  inherit  the  kingdom." 
"  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  unto  these  my  brethren,  the 
least  of  these,  ye  did  it  unto  me."  There  appears  to 
be  no  good  reason  for  saying  in  regard  to  this  section 
with  B.  Weiss :  "  It  is  hardly  to  be  denied  that  Luke 

^  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  ii.  p.  67.  This  scholar  finds 
nothing  "  specifically  Christian  "  in  the  narrative,  nothing  that  "  a 
wise  Israelite  might  not  have  said."  He  is  not  disposed,  however, 
on  account  of  this  to  deny  the  origin  of  the  words  with  Jesus. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  131 

shows  an  ascetic  view  of  the  world  that  sees  in 
wealth  in  itself  something  sinful  (cf,  vi.  24  f.),  and 
therefore  regards  the  renunciation  of  it  and  the 
devotion  of  it  to  alms  as  the  only  way  to  purify  one- 
self from  it."  ^  For  no  grounds  have  been  shown  for 
regarding  the  writer  of  Luke  rather  than  his  sources 
as  responsible  for  the  passages  in  the  third  Gospel 
that  denote  "  an  ascetic  view  of  the  world." 

In  tlie  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward,  referred  to 
in  Chapter  II.,  or  in  its  applications  at  least,  which 
may  have  originated  with  Luke,  or  have  been  derived 
from  another  source  than  the  logia,  the  "  prudent " 
use  of  wealth  in  benevolence  with  a  view  to  assuring 
one's  future  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  recommended.^ 
In  the  first  seven  verses  (pure  parable)  it  is  related 
that  a  steward  about  to  be  discharged  for  reputed 
malfeasance  makes  friends  with  his  lord's  debtors  by 
reducing  the  accounts  against  them,  in  order  that  on 
his  dismissal  he  may  not  have  to  "dig"  or  "beg," 
but  may  be  received  into  their  houses.  Of  this 
section  we  may,  according  to  Jiilicher,  be  sure.  The 
teaching  is  simply :  Use  the  present  life  to  prepare 
for  the  future.  No  stress  is  to  be  laid  upon  the 
means   employed,   however  badly   chosen   we   may 

'  Lehen  Jesu,  dritte  Aufl.  ii.  p.  57. 
'^  Luke  xvi.  1-12. 


132  EICH  AND  POOR 

think  the  subject  is,  just  as  no  significance  is  to  be 
attached  to  the  "  oil "  or  the  "  wheat." 

From  this  point  there  follow  (vv.  8-12)  interpreta- 
tions of  the  parable.     Of  these  the  first  (v.  8)  is, 
according  to  J.  Weiss,  derived  from  Luke's  separate 
source,  and  is  to  the  effect  that  the  Lord^  (Jesus) 
commended  the  unrighteous  steward  for  his  wisdom, 
not,  of  course,  for  his  unrighteousness,  which  is  here 
for  the  first  time  mentioned.     He  is  represented  as 
y      one  of  the  eons  of  "  this  age,"  the  age  of  wickedness, 
in  contrast  with  the  coming  Messianic  age.     The 
second  interpretation  (v.  9)  runs  to  the  effect  that 
the  persons  addressed,  probably  the  Pharisees  (v.  14), 
should  make  to  themselves  friends  of  the  Mammon  of 
unrighteousness,  in  order  that,  when  it  fails,  they 
may  receive   them  into  "the  eternal  tabernacles," 
that  is,  into  the  Messianic  kingdom.     Here  wisdom, 
which  was  the  leading  idea  in  the  parable  proper, 
is  lost  sight  of,  and   we   have   what   is   called  an 
"  allegorising  "  of  the  real  parable.     Earthly  posses- 
sions, personified  as  Mammon,  the  demon  or  idol  of 

^  The  revised  version  reads  "his  lord,"  that  is,  the  steward's 
employer,  without  any  warrant  in  the  text.  The  last  clause  of 
the  verse  could  not  have  been  spoken  by  the  lord  of  the  steward. 
See  Jiilicher,  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesxi,,  ii.  p.  503.  "The  words 
are  to  be  regarded  as  the  report  on  the  a])plication  that  Jesus  had 
made  of  the  liarable." — Weizsacker,  Die  evangelische  Geschichte, 
p.  213. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  133 

riches,  are  characterised,  according  to  the  Hebrew 
idiom,  as  "  the  Mammon  of  unrighteousness." 

It  is  not  allowable  to  read  into  this  phrase  the 
designation  of  any  part  of  wealth,  such  as  that 
unjustly  acquired,  as  pertaining  to  unrighteousness. 
The  term  is  comprehensive  of  wealth  as  such,  and 
the  gist  of  this  interpretation  of  the  parable  is  that 
riches,  to  which  so  much  that  is  sinful  necessarily 
clings,  are  good  only  to  be  employed  in  gaining, 
through  a  charitable  use  of  them,  friends  who  will 
receive  the  benefactor  into  the  everlasting  habitations 
of  the  age  to  come.^  According  to  the  proceeding  at 
the  great  assize,  Jesus,  as  the  representative  of  the 
unfortunate  who  have  received  kindnesses,  receives 
their  benefactors  into  the  kingdom.  A  third 
(allegorising)  application  of  the  parable  (vv.  10-12) 
draws  from  it  the  teaching  that  man  is  not  the 
owner,  but  only  the  steward  of  earthly  possessions, 
the  unrighteous  Mammon,  and  that  if  he  follows  the 
example  of  the  unrighteous  steward  in  dealing  with 
them  as  if  they  were  his  own,  "  the  true  riches,"  the 
Messianic  inheritance,  will  not  be  entrusted  to  him, 
"God   has   only  temporarily  and   by   way  of  trial 

'  "  He  tliat  hath  pity  upon  the  poor 
lendeth  unto  the  Lord, 
And  his  good  deed  will  He  pay 
him  again." — Prov.  xix.  17. 


134  KICK  AND  POOR 

entrusted  Mammon  to  His  children  in  order,  accord- 
ing to  the  use  they  make  of  it,  to  commit  to  them 
the  true  goods,  of  which  that  is  only  a  deceptive 
phantom."  This  difficult  section  is  intelligible  only 
from  the  point  of  view  previously  indicated  (see 
Chapter  III.). 

It  is  hardly  possible  more  completely  to  mis- 
understand this  parable  and  its  applications  than  by 
referring  them  to  the  earthly  social  order  :  "  As  he 
[the  unjust  steward]  by  trickiness,  not  to  say  dis- 
honesty, had  won  for  himself  friends,  so  it  is  possible 
in  a  nobler  way  for  men  so  to  use  wealth  as  to  bind 
others  closer  to  themselves.  This  is  one  of  the  tests 
of  character,  this  making  of  friends  by  money."  ^  The 
hazards  are  certainly  great  of  reading  the  New 
Testament  apart  from  its  historical  connection,  as 
if  it  were  a  product  of  the  nineteenth  century  instead 
of  a  product  of  the  first. 

The  parable  of  the  Unjust  Steward  is  connected 
with  that  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  by  a  series 
of  sayings  directed  against  the  Pharisees,  who,  as 
"lovers  of  money"  ((})tXdpyvpoL),  scoffed  at  the 
teaching  about  the  use  to  which  the  Mammon  of 
unrighteousness  should  be  put.  Jesus  tells  them 
that  they  are  not  really  so  "  exalted  "  as  in  the  pride 

'  Shailer  Mathews,  The  Social  Teachings  of  Jesiis,  1897,  p.  144. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  135 

of  their  wealth  and  station  tliey  think  themselves  to 
be.^  God  knows  their  hearts,  and  that  which  is 
exalted  among  men  is  an  abomination  to  Him. 
These  words  furnish  an  intelligible  introduction  to 
the  following  parable,  in  which  it  is  shown  that 
social  eminence,  prosperity,  and  riches  are  no  evidence 
of  acceptance  with  God,  since  death  may  change  the 
fortunes  of  rich  and  poor.  A  very  natural  place  for 
the  parable  is  after  verse  15.  This  was  perhaps  its 
original  position. 

The  contrasts  in  the  parable  are  forcefully  and 
vividly  drawn.  On  the  one  hand,  a  rich  man 
splendidly  dressed  and  making  merry  on  a  magnifi- 
cent scale  every  day  (eucppaivo/xevof;  kuO^  rjfjbipav 
Xafi7rp(o<i) ;  on  the  other,  a  wretched  beggar  flung 
down  at  his  gate,  full  of  sores,  and  "desiring  to  be 
fed  with  the  crumbs  "  from  the  other's  table.  Then 
the  sudden  interference  of  undiscriminating  Death, 
and  the  reversal  of  relations  in  the  underworld. 
The  beggar  is  borne  by  angels  into  Abraham's 
bosom,  the  paradise  of  the  underworld,^  while  the 

^  "  I  fancied  that  I  was  full  of  righteousness, 

Because  I  was  fortunate  aud  rich  in  children." — Ps.  Sol,  i.  3. 

^  The  cun-ent  ideas  of  the  times  respecting  the  conditions  in  the 
life  after  death  are  simply  assumed  in  the  parable.  No  doctrinal 
importance  is  to  be  attached  to  this  feature  of  the  passage,  just  as 
no  conclusions  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  representation  of  the 
possession  of  bodily  organs  and  sensibilities  in   the  life  in  the 


^ 


136  EICH  AND  POOR 

rich  man  in  the  place  of  torment  begs  of  Abraham 
that  he  will  send  Lazarus  to  alleviate  his  pain  by 
the  slight  service  of  dipping  his  finger  in  water  and 
applying  it  to  the  tongue  of  him  who  was  suffering 
in  the  "  flame."  The  mercy  prayed  for  cannot,  how- 
ever, be  granted,  even  if  Lazarus  were  disposed  to 
relieve  the  misery  of  the  man  who  on  earth  had 
made  no  friends  by  almsgiving  with  his  "  Mammon 
of  unrighteousness."  Abraham  gives  two  reasons  for 
refusing  to  grant  the  request,  the  second  of  which 
renders  the  first  unnecessary.  But  the  first,  Luke 
thought,  must  be  stated,  since  in  it  lies  the  gist 
of  the  parable :  "  Eemember  that  thou  in  thy  lifetime 
receivedst  thy  good  things,  and  Lazarus  in  like 
manner  evil  things  :  but  now  here  he  is  comforted, 
and  thou  art  in  anguish."  Here  closes  the  first  part 
of  the  parable.^ 

Considered   by   itself,  apart   from   the   supposed 
allegorising  addition  (vv.  27-31),  the  parable  presents 

underworld.  The  parable  has  but  one  didactic  object,  one  teaching 
to  set  forth,  and  to  this  the  interjireter  must  hasten  on,  as  does  the 
narrator,  not  turning  aside  to  weigh  irrelevant  matters.  "Jesus 
felt  no  need  of  correcting  the  popular  ideas  on  this  point  according 
to  the  wishes  of  a  later  dogmatic.  They  satisfied  him  and  his 
disciples,  and  almost  the  worst  misconstruction  that  the  story  could 
suffer  were  the  delusion  that  it  was  composed  in  order  to  promulgate 
new  revelations  on  the  conditions  in  the  other  world." — Jiilicher, 
Bit  Oleichnisreden  Jcsu,  ii.  p.  623. 
1  Luke  xvi.  19-26. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  137 

no  difficulty  to  the  interpreter  who  will  refrain  from 
importing  into  it  ideas  that  are  foreign  to  its  purpose. 
It  contains  no  general  doctrine  of  salvation  and 
condemnation  in  the  life  to  come.  The  lesson 
simply  is,  that  after  death  the  poor  and  wretched 
man  goes  to  paradise,  and  the  selfish  rich  man  to  the 
place  of  torment.  It  is  a  vivid  commentary  upon 
the  beatitude  for  the  poor  and  the  woe  for  the  rich 
in  Luke's  report  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  It  is 
a  solution  of  the  old  problem  of  the  cruel  inequalities 
of  life,  showing  how  in  the  divine  order  a  swift  and 
summary  adjustment  is  hereafter  made  of  unequal 
conditions  that  find  no  adjustment  in  this  world. 
There  is  no  intimation  either  that  Lazarus  had 
merited  paradise  by  any  good  works  or  even  by 
penitence  and  faith,  or  that  the  rich  man  had  deserved 
the  tormenting  flame  by  an  evil  life  or  on  account  of 
impenitence.  The  most  that  can  be  inferred  as  to 
his  character  is,  that  he  had  taken  his  ease  and  made 
merry,  and  had  not  relieved  the  beggar,  even  if  he 
had  ever  seen  him.  Nothing  is  said  of  this  matter, 
because  it  is  remote  from  the  object  in  view.  This 
will  be  felt  as  a  deficiency  only  by  those  who  want 
to  find  an  entire  system  of  theology  in  a  parable,  and 
who  in  trying  to  find  too  much  find  nothing. 

If  the  section,  vv.  27-31,  constitutes  a  part  of  the 


138  RICH  AND  POOR 

original  parable,  then  it  contains  an  intimation  that 
penitence  and  impenitence  were  the  reasons  for  the 
destinies  of  the  two  men  (vv.  28,  31).  The  section 
ia  unrelated  to  the  leading  idea  and  the  distinctive 
purpose  of  the  first  part,  and  is  regarded  by  some  of 
the  highest  authorities  as  an  addition  to  the  words 
of  Jesus.  Without  entering  upon  the  discussion  of 
this  matter,  the  question  may  be  raised  whether 
Jesus'  hearers  would  have  understood  him  to  imply 
in  verses  19-26  another  reason  for  the  relative  condi- 
tions of  the  two  men  in  the  underworld  than  riches 
and  poverty.  Abraham  gives  the  rich  man  no 
reason  why  he  is  in  torment,  but  only  reasons  why 
his  sufferings  cannot  be  relieved — the  great  gulf  and 
the  fact  that  in  the  world  he  had  had  his  "good 
things."  The  rich  man  does  not,  in  fact,  ask  why  he 
is  in  the  flame.  He  appears  to  have  assumed  that 
he  had  gone  to  "  his  own  place."  According,  how- 
ever, to  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  as  to  rewards 
and  punishments  for  the  righteous  and  wicked  in 
the  underworld,^  the  hearers  of  Jesus  must  have 
regarded  the  fate  of  the  men  as  determined  by  their 
lives,  and  not  merely  by  the  fact  that  the  one  was 

^  "The  righteous  will  rise  to  eternal  life  in  the  glory  of  the 
Messianic  age,  but  the  unrighteous  will  be  jiunished  with  eternal 
pain." — Schiirer,  Gesch.  des  jildischcn  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Chridi, 
dritte  Aufl.  ii.  p.  391.     Gf.  Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8,  14. 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  139 

rich  and  the  other  poor.  Although  this  fact  cannot 
be  taken  into  account  in  the  exegesis  of  the  parable, 
it  is  admissible  in  its  historical  interpretation.  We 
have  already  mentioned  some  of  the  reasons  for 
Jesus'  beatitude  upon  the  poor  and  his  sympathy 
with  the  unfortunate.  The  rich  man,  living  in  pomp 
and  luxury  every  day,  must  have  seemed  to  him  to 
be  as  averse  to  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  poor  were 
in  general  predisposed  to  it. 

The  words  of  Abraham  to  the  rich  man,  "  Thou 
receivedst  thy  good  things  in  thy  lifetime,"  appear 
to  rest  upon  the  doctrine  that  a  man  is  entitled  to  a 
certain  amount  of  happiness,  which,  if  he  has  enjoyed 
it  in  this  life,  will  not  be  again  accorded  hira  in  the 
life  to  come,  and  vice  versa.  To  this  effect  runs  the 
rabbinical  principle  that  "  earthly  good  fortune  is  a 
misfortune,  since  it  may  serve  as  a  reward  for  our 
merits,  and  rob  us  of  heavenly  blessedness."  It  is 
interesting  to  note  the  contact  of  modern  philosophy 
with  ancient  thought  that  appears  when  we  compare 
with  this  doctrine  Kant's  deduction  of  the  belief 
in  immortality  from  the  intuition  of  "the  practi- 
cal reason,"  that  there  must  be  another  life,  in 
order  that  the  due  ethical  compensations  may  be 
made. 

There  remain  to  be  mentioned  a  few  more  unique 


140  RICH  AND  POOR 

features  of  this  Gospel  that  relate  to  the  equalising  of 
earthly  inequalities,  the  renunciation  of  the  things  of 
"  this  age,"  and  sympathy  with  the  poor.  The  com- 
pleteness of  this  chapter  requires  consideration  of 
one  or  two  passages  that  have  already  heen  referred 
to.  In  a  section  peculiar  to  Luke  (iii.  10-14),  John, 
when  asked  by  "  the  multitude "  what  they  should 
do,  says  :  "  He  that  hath  two  coats,  let  him  impart 
to  him  that  hath  none  ;  and  he  that  hath  food,  let 
him  do  likewise."  In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  the 
saying  about  giving  is  reported  in  a  more  intense 
form  than  in  Matthew :  "  Give  to  every  one  that 
asketh  thee  ;  and  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy  goods 
ask  them  not  again."  ^  And  again  :  "  Give,  and  it 
shall  be  given  unto  you  ;  good  measure,  pressed 
down,  shaken  together,  running  over,  shall  they  give 
into  your  bosom."  ^  The  recompense  so  extravagantly 
delineated  will  be  made  in  the  divine  judgment,  or  in 
the  age  to  come.  The  rendering,  "  men  will  give,"  is 
tame  and  unwarranted. 

An    unqualified    injunction     about     almsgiving 
requires  of  disciples  that  they  sell  that  they  have, 

*  Chap.  vi.  30.     Cf.  Matt.  v.  42. 

'  Chap.  vi.  38.  "They  will  give"  {5u}trov<ni').  Meyer  under- 
stands "they "to  refer  to  the  angels  who  will  take  part  in  the 
judgment.  The  verb  is  "almost  impersonal"  (Plumer),  and  is 
equivalent  to  "one  will  give,"  or  "will  be  given." 


THE  TEACHING  IN  LUKE  141 

and  give  alms.^  Kindness  to  the  poor  in  a  quite 
impracticable  way  is  enjoined  in  the  requirement  not 
to  invite  to  a  dinner  one's  friends,  kinsmen,  or  rich 
neighbours,  but  the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the 
blind,  lest  "  a  recompense  be  made  "  by  a  return  of 
the  courtesy.  He  who  obeys  this  injunction  will  be 
"  recompensed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  just."  ^  Tlie 
hard  condition  of  discipleship,  that  one  mu^  "  hate  " 
one's  own  nearest  kindred,  must  have  been  uttered 
in  an  exalted  mood  of  renunciation  in  which  the  ties 
of  "this  age"  appeared  only  as  hindrances  to  the 
attainment  of  the  "  age  to  come."  ^  It  must  have 
been  in  such  a  mood  that  the  uncompromising  words 
were  spoken :  "  Whosoever  he  be  of  you  that  re- 
nounceth  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my 
disciple."  * 

In   a   section   without   a   parallel    in   the   other 

^  Chap.  xii.  33.  Without  warrant  Plumer  weakens  this  to 
"We  must  be  ready  to  part  with  our  possessions." 

'^  Chap.  xiv.  12-14.  Plumer  interprets  the  "  present  imperative," 
Ij.TTi  (pdivei,  ' '  Do  not  habitually  call "  !  But  KaXei  in  the  next  verse 
is  "present  imperative."  Hence  one  should  " habitually "  invite 
the  poor,  lame,  etc. ! 

'  Chap.  xiv.  26.  Here  fjucrelv  cannot  be  softened  to,  "  hold  in 
less  regard  than  me."  There  can  be  no  double  service.  One 
will  either  "  hate  the  one  and  love  the  other,  or  will  cleave  to  the 
one  and  despise  the  other."  If  the  kindred  do  not  go  the  way  of 
the  disciple,  is  the  only  c[ualificatiou  that  can  be  implied,  and  it  is 
not  certain  that  we  have  a  right  to  assume  this. 

*  Chap.  xiv.  33.  "Ready  to  renounce"  (Plumer)  is  by  no 
means  the  meaning  of  these  great  words. 


142  EICH  AND  POOE 

synoptics,  and  belonging  to  the  discourse  in  answer 
to  the  question  when  the  kingdom  of  God  would 
come,  Luke  adds  to  Matthew's  illustration  from  "  the 
days  of  Noah  "  one  from  "  the  days  of  Lot,"  with  the 
admonition  to  "  remember  Lot's  wife,"  thus  pointing 
out  the  peril  of  attachment  to  earthly  possessions,^  In 
concluding  the  consideration  of  the  third  Gospel  with 
a  few  words  about  the  episode  of  Zacchseus  it  is 
necessary  to  dwell  only  upon  the  feature  of  it  that 
concerns  our  subject.  This  rich  chief  of  the  publicans 
is  declared  to  have  received  "  salvation  "  because  he 
made  a  vow  to  give  half  his  wealth  to  the  poor  and 
to  make  fourfold  restitution  to  any  whom  he  may 
have  wronged.^  Eepentance  for  any  exactions  that 
he  might  have  committed  is  undoubtedly  implied, 
but  there  is  no  hint  of  his  penitence  for  other  sins. 
Is  it  to  be  assumed  that  these  were  regarded  as 
atoned  for  by  the  almsgiving?  If  not,  the  ground 
of  his  salvation  is  not  apparent.  A  representation  of 
the  matter,  however,  that  should  make  kindness  to 
the  poor  "  cover  a  multitude  of  sins  "  would  not  be 
surprising  in  this  unique  and  remarkable  Gospel. 

'  Chap.  xvii.  28-30.  2  chap.  xix.  1-10. 


CHAPTER  VI 


ALL  THINGS   COMMON 


The  author  of  Luke  presents  in  his  second  work, 
Acts,  written  about  the  end  of  the  first  century  or  in 
the  first  quarter  of  the  second,  two  or  three  rather 
obscure  statements  as  to  the  relations  of  rich  and 
poor  and  their  manner  of  living  together  among  the 
primitive  Christians.  The  long  period  of  time  that 
separated  the  writer  from  the  events  recorded  and  our 
ignorance  as  to  his  sources  and  his  manner  of  using 
them,  render  it  very  difiicult  to  ascertain  the  facts  in 
the  case.^     It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  expositors  are 

^  ' '  Before  we  question  a  source  as  to  any  historical  fact,  we  must 
discern  its  attitude  in  general  toward  the  fact  coucerned.  .  .  .  The 
title,  '  according  to  Luke,'  is  completely  confirmed  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  Acts  in  its  portions  treating  of  the  missions  of  Paul 
contains  certain  sections  that  are  distinguished  as  to  form  from  the 
rest  of  the  book  by  the  sudden  change  of  the  narrative  to  the  first 
person,  and  as  to  contents  by  the  greatest  vividness  and  palpable- 
ness.  That  part  of  the  writing  in  which  these  sections  are  em- 
bedded suffers  from  obscurities  and  difficulties  of  the  most  manifold 
sort,  especially  from  contradictions  with  the  most  credible  state- 

143 


144  EICH  AND  POOK 

not  agreed  in  the  interpretation  of  the  three  or  four 
passages  relating  to  the  matter.  Whatever  conclusion 
may  be  drawn  from  the  exposition  of  these  passages, 
the  fact  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  object  of  the 
inquiry  is  only  to  determine  the  actual  historical 
situation.  The  way  in  which  the  little  band  of 
believers  in  Jesus  may  have  lived  together  for  a  short 
time  in  Jerusalem  can  have  no  other  interest  for  us 
than  that  which  attaches  to  a  matter  of  history, 
except  in  so  far  as  the  spirit  that  determined  their 
mode  of  life  may  furnish  an  impulse  to  us.  There  is 
no  reason  for  regarding  their  procedure  as  an  example 
for  our  imitation. 

The  first  passage  relating  to  the  matter  is  as 
follows:  "And  all  that  believed  were  together,  and 
had  all  things  common ;  and  they  sold  their  pos- 
sessions and  goods,  and  parted  them  to  all,  according 
as  any  man  had  need.  And  day  by  day,  continuing 
steadfastly  with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  break- 
ing bread  at  home,  they  did  take  their  food  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart,  praising  God,  and 
having   favour   with   all    the    people."^       Another 

ments  of  the  genuine  Pauline  Epistles.     Among  all  the  known 
companions  of  Paul  the  sections  having  the  narrative  in  the  first 
person  can  have  had  Luke  alone  as  their  author."— Holtzmann, 
Die  ersten  Christen  mid  die  sucinle  Frcuje,  1882. 
'  Acts  ii.  44-47. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  145 

account  of  the  matter  is  the  following  :  "  And  the 
multitude  of  them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart 
and  soul :  and  not  one  of  them  said  that  aught  of  the 
things  which  he  possessed  was  his  own  ;  but  they 
had  all  things  common.  ,  .  .  For  neither  was  there 
among  them  any  that  lacked :  for  as  many  as  were 
possessors  of  lands  or  houses  sold  them,  and  brought 
the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold,  and  laid  them 
at  the  apostles'  feet :  and  distribution  was  made 
unto  each,  according  as  any  one  had  need."  ^  Follow- 
ing this  latter  account,  express  mention  is  made  of 
the  fact  that  Barnabas,  "  having  a  field,  sold  it,  and 
brought  the  money,  and  laid  it  at  the  apostles'  feet."  ^ 
Furthermore,  in  the  immediate  connection  it  is 
related  that  when  Ananias  and  Sapphira  kept  back 
a  part  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  "  a  possession," 
Peter  in  pronouncing  judgment  upon  them  plainly 
indicates  that  it  was  optional  with  an  owner  of 
property  to  sell  it  or  not,  and  that  he  might,  after  it 
was  sold,  retain  the  money .^ 

The  prominence  here  given  by  the  writer  of  Acts 
to  indifference  on  the  part  of  Christians  respecting 
worldly  possessions  and  to  extraordinary  measures 
taken  for  the  benefit  of  the  poor,  corresponds  to  the 
predilection  that  he  shows,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 

^  Acts  iv.  32-35.  -  Acts  iv.  36  f.  '  Acts  v.  1-4. 

10 


146  RICH  AND  POOR 

third  Gospel  for  collecting  sayings  of  Jesus  relating 

to  the  hindrance  of  riches  to  the  spiritual  life  and 

the  meritoriousness  of  almsgiving.     This  predilection 

is  shown  in  other  places  in  this  book  in  a  diligent 

collecting  of  all  facts  that  go  to  prove  the  charitable 

disposition  of  persons  prominent  among  the  believers. 

Dorcas,  who  was  "  full  of  good  works  and  almsdeeds 

that  she  did,"  is  made  the  subject  of  an  astounding 

miracle.^     On  the  ground  of  a  prophecy  of  Agabus 

foretelling  "  a  great  famine,"  the  Antiochian  believers 

send  relief,  "  every  man  according  to  his  ability,"  to 

the  brethren  in  Judsea."     Cornelius, "  a  devout  man, 

who  gave  much  alms,"  is  especially  honoured  by  the 

fact  that  his  "  alms  are  had  in  remembrance  in  the 

sight  of  God."  ^     Peter's  contempt  for  money  appears 

in  his  words  to  Simon  the  sorcerer,  and  Paul  is  made 

to  say  that  he  coveted  "  no  man's  silver  or  gold  or 

apparel."  *     "  If  Luke  followed  an  inward  impulse  in 

communicating  these  facts,  it  was  also  his  intention 

to  draw  for  Theophilus,  who  was  still  a   heathen, 

an  affecting  picture  of  the  love  that  animated  the 

Christian  community — a  love  for  which  the  Gkcco- 

Roman  heathenism  had  little  susceptibility."  ^ 

The  historical  character  of  the  account  of  the 

1  Acts  ix.  36-41.  '^  Acts  xi.  28  f. 

»  Acts  X.  2,  31.  ■•  Acts  viii.  20  ;  xx.  33. 

^  Jacoby,  Ncutest.  Ethik,  p.  418. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  147 

social  relations  of  the  primitive  Christians  in 
Jerusalem  has  been  called  in  question  even  by 
conservative  expositors.  Neander  finds  much  in 
Acts  itself  that  opposes  the  idea  of  such  a  com- 
munity of  goods  as  is  indicated  in  the  narratives 
quoted  above.  "Peter  says  expressly  to  Ananias 
that  the  latter  could  do  as  he  pleased  about  selling 
his  property  and  about  retaining  or  giving  over  the 
proceeds  in  case  he  sold  it.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Acts  mention  is  made  only  of  a  relative  distribution 
of  alms  to  widows,  and  by  no  means  of  a  common 
fund  for  the  support  of  the  entire  Church.  We  find 
in  chap.  xii.  that  Mary  [the  mother  of  John  Mark] 
had  a  house  of  her  own  in  Jerusalem,  and  accordingly 
that  she  had  not  sold  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  common 
purse.  These  intimations  prove  clearly  that  we  are 
by  no  means  to  imagine  in  this  first  Christian  com- 
munity a  dissolution  of  all  property-relations."  ^ 

Baur  finds  that  nothing  else  than  just  such  a  state 
of  things  is  declared  in  plain  terms  by  the  writer  of 
Acts.  The  contradictions  that  Neander  points  out 
lead  him,  however,  to  conclude  that  we  are  not 
simply  to  say  with  that  scholar  that  the  account  is 
not  to  be  taken  literally,  but  that  we  "  must  recognise 

^  Gesch.  dtrPflanzung  imd  Leitung  der  Christlichen  Kirchc,  vol.  i. 
p.  62. 


148  RICH  AND  POOR 

another  interest  than  the  historical  at  the  basis  of 
it — the  interest,  namely,  to  make  that  first  com- 
munity appear  in  the  light  of  a  union  that  had 
removed  from  its  midst  everything  that  intervenes 
to  disturb  or  separate  in  the  social  relations  of  men, 
above  all,  the  distinction  of  wealth  and  poverty. 
Such  a  state  of  things,  however,  did  not,  and  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  could  not,  exist.  For  how  can  it 
be  thought  that  in  a  community  consisting  accord- 
ing to  the  writer's  own  statement  of  five  thousand 
men,  all  who  possessed  real  estate,  lands  and  houses, 
sold  even  their  houses,  so  that  no  one  in  the  whole 
congregation  had  a  residence  of  his  own  ?  And  if  it 
was  a  general  rule  that  every  one  who  had  property 
sold  it,  and  converted  it  into  money  for  the  general 
fund,  why  is  prominence  given  to  the  act  of  Barnabas 
as  especially  commendable,  that  he  sold  his  field,  and 
laid  the  proceeds  at  the  apostles'  feet?  We  must 
conclude  from  this  that  what  the  writer  had  before 
stated  to  be  a  general  rule  in  the  first  Christian 
society  did  not  really  exist  as  such."  ^ 

The  interpretation  given  by  Weizsacker  to  the 
account  in  question  is  to  the  effect  that  although 
there  were  always  poor  in  the  society,  for  whom  the 
brethren  had  to  care,  the  declaration  in  Acts  iv.  34, 

*  Paulus,  der  Apostel  Jcsu  Cliristi,  1845,  p.  30. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  149 

that  "there  was  not  any  that  lacked,"  was  made 
only  in  an  ideal  sense.  And  when  it  is  said  that  no 
one  any  longer  spoke  of  anything  as  his  own,  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  this  circumstance,  that  "  they 
had  all  things  common,"  must  be  understood  in  the 
same  sense.  "  Indeed,  the  very  fact  that  the  support 
is  represented  as  continued  and  permanent  shows 
that  no  general  distribution  took  place."  From  the 
statements  that  some  of  the  believers  sold  their 
property  and  "  parted  "  the  proceeds  "  to  all  accord- 
ing as  any  man  had  need,"  and  that  others  laid  the 
money  received  for  possessions  sold  at  the  feet  of  the 
apostles,  who  made  distribution  to  each  according 
to  his  need,  Weizsacker  draws  the  conclusion  that 
"  not  community  of  goods,  but  relief  of  the  poor  was 
carried  on."  "There  lies  in  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
not  merely  the  helpful  love  of  the  neighbour,  but 
also  the  separation  from  possessions  as  a  hindrance 
to  the  service  of  God  and  righteousness  in  His  king- 
dom. Prudent  calculation  as  to  the  future  could  not 
restrain  the  tendency  in  this  direction ;  for  the  belief 
was  current  that  it  was  a  question  of  a  brief  space  of 
time  in  which  the  kingdom  was  to  be  expected," 
"  The  attitude  toward  the  poor  rested  upon  the  purely 
religious  motives  of  depreciation  of  outward  earthly 
possessions  and  the  consideration  of  the  companions 


150  RICH  AND  POOR 

in  the  faith  as  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
brothers  in  this  sense." ' 

On  the  contrary,  H.  Holtzmann  maintains,  in  a 
scientific  discussion  of  the  subject,^  that  the  writer 
of  Acts  intended  to  represent  the  primitive-Christian 
community  in  Jerusalem  as  living  in  a  relation  of  an 
actual  community  of  goods.  This  mode  of  life  is  not 
only  stated  in  so  many  words,  but  also  the  way  in 
which  it  was  effected  is  mentioned,  namely,  the  sale 
of  possessions.  Yet  in  the  immediate  connection 
and  in  other  places  in  Acts  are  found  statements 
that  are  incompatible  with  such  a  condition  of 
things.  Barnabas'  sacrifice  of  his  property  is 
mentioned  as  an  example  of  the  correct  procedure  in 
the  case,  while  Ananias  is  told  that  he  might  have 
retained  his.  Moreover,  Christians  are  elsewhere 
represented  as  having  houses  in  Jerusalem.  Finally, 
the  fact  that  certain  widows  were  not  provided  for  is 
inconsistent  with  the  declaration  that  no  one  lacked 
anything  on  account  of  the  community  of  goods. 

The  statement,  then,  that  the  Christians  "  had  all 
things  common"  is  found  to  be  an  exaggeration. 
From  all  that  can  be  learned  of  the  social  condition 
of  the  primitive  Church  there  is  no  indication  that 

'  Dan  apostoL  ZeitaUer,  2te  Aufl.  p.  45  f. 
-  Uie  emten  Uhristcn  and  die  sociale  Frage,  1882. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  151 

community  of  goods  was  even  temporarily  practised. 
"  It  is  a  fact  that  no  branch  of  the  mother-Church 
ever  followed  its  reputed  example  in  this  respect,  and 
that  despite  the  authority  that  its  example  must 
have  had,  nowhere  does  the  thought  of  a  community 
of  goods  appear  as  an  ideal,  as  something  that  ought 
of  right  to  exist."  Paul,  while  urging  his  churches 
to  make  contributions  for  the  poor,  intimates  no 
knowledge  of  a  community  of  goods,  and  his  Epistles 
presuppose  the  fact  and  the  justification  of  private 
property.^ 

Eather  than  attempt  an  historical  construction  of 
primitive  Christianity  on  the  presumption  that  it 
seized  upon  an  existing  social  movement  in  Palestine, 
and  established  a  community  of  "God's  poor,"  in 
which  there  was  no  question  of  personal  possessions,^ 
or  adopt  the  theory  that  assumes  an  actual  com- 
munity of  goods  set  up  in  imitation  of  the  Essenes, 
Holtzmann  derives  the  social  ideal  expressed  in 
Acts  from  contact  of  the  writer  with  tendencies  of 
the  time  that  are  traceable  through  the  New 
Pythagoreans  to  Plato.  This  hypothesis  is  supported, 
in  the  first  place,  by  the  predilection  of  the  writer  of 
Acts  that  has  been  shown  in  the  foregoing  chapter 

1  1  Thess.  iv.  11  ;  1  Cor.  xiii.  3  ;  xvi.  2  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  14  ;  xii.  14. 
^  See   Renan,    Len   ApGtres,    pp.  115-131,  and   Heber   Newton, 
Unitarian  liemew,  1882. 


152  EICH  AND  POOE 

for  the  reputed  sayings  of  Jesus  favourable  to  the 
poor  and  against  riches  as  a  hindrance  to  the 
righteousness  of  the  kingdom  of  God — the  point  of 
view  that  riches  are  in  themselves  pernicious,  while 
poverty  is  essentially  promotive  of  salvation. 

Another  consideration  that  supports  this 
hypothesis  is  that  the  writer  of  Acts  represents  a 
widespread  social  tendency,  contemporary  with  him 
in  the  second  century.  In  the  Epistle  ascribed  to 
Barnabas,  written  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century,  we  find,  for  example,  such  sentiments  as  the 
following:  "Thou  shalt  communicate  to  thy  neigh- 
bour of  all  thou  hast ;  thou  shalt  not  call  anything 
thy  own  :  for  if  ye  partake  in  such  things  as  are  in- 
corruptible, how  much  more  should  you  do  it  in 
those  that  are  corruptible."  ^  In  like  manner,  Justin 
Martyr,  speaking  for  himself  and  his  fellow-Christians 
of  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  says :  "  We  who 
were  formerly  occupied  by  preference  with  posses- 
sions and  goods  now  bring  what  we  have  to  the 
community,  and  share  it  with  every  one  that  has 
need."^  At  about  the  same  time,  Lucian,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  death  of  Peregrinus  Proteus,  speaks  of 
the  Christians  as  holding  all  things  in  common,  intend- 
ing, according  to  the  connection,  to  say  that  they 

^  Barah.  Ejj.  xix.  8.  ^  Jpol.  i.  14  ;  cT.  xiii.  67. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  153 

regarded  themselves  as  obligated  to  assist  all  their 
needy  brethren  without  distinction.  Other  testi- 
monies to  the  same  effect  are  quoted  from  the 
Clementines  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  Toward 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  Tertullian  attributes 
community  of  goods  to  his  fellow-Christians,  plainly 
implying,  however,  that  it  is  an  ideal  communism 
and  is  accompanied  by  no  compulsion.  In  fact,  a 
legally  organised  communism  did  not,  and  could  not, 
exist  either  in  the  apostolic  or  the  post-apostolic 
Church,  for  the  reason,  as  Holtzmann  points  out, 
that  the  institution  of  the  family  was  maintained. 
"  Upon  this  point  Christianity  jealously  guarded  the 
honourable  inheritance  of  Judaism,  and  absolutely 
rejected  all  Platonic  theory  and  practice." 

From  these  considerations  the  conclusion  is 
regarded  as  not  "too  hazardous"  that  the  "social 
ideal"  of  the  author  of  Acts  and  of  the  gentile 
Church  of  the  second  century  is  represented  as 
realised  in  "  the  sacred  primitive  time "  of 
Christianity.  The  basis  of  the  account  in  Acts  is 
found  in  the  ascetic-socialistic  tendencies  of  the  age 
in  which  the  book  was  written — tendencies  that  find 
a  decided  expression  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  and  that 
become  stronger  in  the  later  period  of  the  develop- 
ment of  monasticism.     Indeed,  "  Chrysostom  rightly 


154  EICH  AND  POOR 

found  the  prototype  of  the  monastic  judgment 
of  property  in  the  communism  of  Jerusalem." 
Monasticism,  moreover,  shows  in  its  history  that  its 
original  basis  was  the  "  primitive-Christian  idealism  " 
of  the  so-called  Ebionite  sections  in  Luke's  Gospel 
and  the  apostolic  community  of  goods  in  Acts. 

Pfleiderer's  construction  of  the  matter  in  question 
finds  in  Luke's  account  a  delineation  of  the  inner 
life  of  the  primitive  community  as  that  of  "a 
religious-socialistic  brotherhood,  united  partly  by  a 
common  edification  through  apostolical  preaching 
and  prayer,  and  partly  by  common  fraternal  meals 
and  a  far-reaching  community  of  goods."  ^  This 
latter  condition,  he  thinks,  is  "  without  doubt 
extravagantly  represented"  in  Acts,  when  it  says 
that  all  possessors  of  houses  and  lands  sold  them, 
and  laid  the  proceeds  at  the  feet  of  the  apostles,  since 
in  that  case  there  would  have  been  no  poor  to  be 
cared  for,  as  there  were,  according  to  chap.  vi. 
Moreover,  the  special  mention  of  Barnabas  and 
Ananias  indicates  that  their  procedure  was  not  the 
general  rule.  Yet  these  latter  statements,  which 
"  clearly  rest  upon  a  definite  tradition,  show  us  that 
the  representation  of  Acts,  although  extravagantly 
idealised,  has  for  all  that  an  historical  kernel,  and 

'  Dufi  Urchrutcnthum,  1887,  p.  555. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  155 

is  by  no  means  to  be  regarded  as  a  legendary 
illustration  of  the  world-renovmcing  disposition  of 
the  primitive  Christians."  "  One  should  keep  much 
more  in  mind  than  German  criticism  has  hitherto 
been  accustomed  to  do,  the  incontestable  fact  that 
the  primitive  community  was  not  a  school  that 
gathered  about  idealistic  theories,  and  not  a  Church 
that  assembled  around  spiritualistic  dogmas,  but 
simply  a  religious  brotherhood  that  hoped,  from  the 
early  coming  of  the  heavenly  Messiah,  Jesus,  for  a 
blessed  new  order  of  things  upon  the  earth.  How 
could  such  a  hope  have  kept  itself  alive,  and  held  the 
community  together,  if  it  had  remained  an  empty  hope, 
and  had  not  realised  itself  in  a  practice  that  should  at 
least  preliminarily  anticipate  the  hoped-for  condition 
of  blessedness  in  the  form  of  a  life  in  a  society  for 
mutual  support  ? "  This  opinion  is  doubtless  based 
upon  a  right  view  of  the  character  and  feelings  of 
the  primitive- Christian  brotherhood,  with  its  idea  of 
fellowship  (koivoovlo)  and  mutual  helpfulness  ;  and 
when  we  compare  this  interpretation  with  that  of 
Holtzmann,  we  appear  to  be  obliged  to  choose 
between  an  "  extravagant "  statement  of  the  matter 
of  community  of  goods  by  the  writer  or  his  source 
and  an  "  idealising "  of  it  by  the  former  from  his 
socialistic  point  of  view  and  that  of  his  age.     In  like 


156  RICH  AND  POOR 

manner,  Wendt,  while  not  concluding  from  the  state- 
ments in  Acts  that  there  was  no  community  of  goods 
at  all,  denies  that  it  could  have  existed  in  the  extent 
("universality")  represented  by  the  writer  of  that 
book.  A  distinction  is,  however,  made  between  the 
source  and  the  construction  that  the  writer  put  upon 
it — the  former  having  originally  had  reference  only 
to  a  community  of  use,  while  the  latter  indicates  an 
actual  community  based  on  the  sale  of  property.^ 

The  discrepancies  in  the  several  accounts  in  Acts 
of  the  social  conditions  in  question  ^  have  suggested  an 
explanation  of  the  matter  based  upon  the  hypothesis 
of  a  plurality  of  sources.  In  ii.  45  and  iv.  34  the 
sale  of  all  possessions  for  the  common  use  is  stated 
as  the  general  practice.  In  iv.  32  nothing  is  said  of 
a  sale  of  possessions,  and  "  the  idea  is  that  the  owners 
placed  their  property  in  a  general  way  at  the  disposal 
of  the  community  at  large,"  without  the  establishment 
of  a  common  fund.  But  according  to  v.  1,  3,  "  the 
sale  of  property  cannot  have  been  universally 
prescribed,  or  even  generally  customary."  From 
these  and  other  related  considerations  Schmiedel 
draws  the  conclusion  that  the  preference  among 
the  different  accounts  is  to  be  given  to  the  simplest, 

'  In  Meyer's  Commentar  on  Acts,  8te  Aufl.  p.  103. 
•■^  Chap.  ii.  42,  45  ;  iv.  32,  34  f.  ;  v.  1,  3  f. 


"ALL  THINGS  COMMON"  157 

that,  namely,  which  indicates  that  without  a  sale  of 
possessions  and  a  common  fund  those  who  had 
property  contributed  to  the  support  of  the  needy 
members  of  the  community.  It  is  added,  however, 
that  "An  account  of  any  institution  of  the  kind, 
clothed  with  the  glamour  of  the  ideal,  is  sure  to 
have  been  exaggerated  by  writers  with  incomplete 
information."^  Thus  this  explanation  comes  to 
substantially  the  same  result  as  those  previously 
mentioned,  while  resting  upon  the  somewhat 
precarious  basis  of  a  discrimination  of  sources  in 
Acts — a  matter  still  involved  in  great  uncertainty. 

However  one  may  solve  the  difficulties  presented 
in  the  passages  in  question,  if,  indeed,  they  can  be 
solved  at  all,  it  appears  from  the  foregoing  considera- 
tions very  evident  that  among  the  primitive 
Christians  in  Jerusalem  no  organised  communism,  in 
which  the  property  and  productivity  of  all  were 
required  to  be  merged  and  administered  in  a  common 
fund,  could  have  existed.  That  the  most  of  these 
persons  were  poor  is  quite  likely.  The  teachings 
and  spirit  of  the  Master,  still  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
his  disciples,  must  have  produced  an  enthusiasm  of 
fraternity  and  helpfulness.      In  view  of  his  words 


'  Art,  ' '  Community  of  Goods  "  iu   the  ihvcyclopoedia  Biblica, 
vol.  i. 


158  RICH  AND  POOR 

about  the  renunciation  of  worldly  possessions  as  a 
condition  of  discipleship,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
those  of  the  community  who  had  property  placed  it 
at  the  disposal  of  the  needy.  Men  who  had  been 
taught  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a 
needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  would  very  likely  be  ready  to  say 
that  nothing  that  they  possessed  was  their  own.  It  is 
altogether  natural  that  among  these  believers  in  Jesus 
his  words  to  his  disciples,  when  he  sent  them  on 
their  mission,  should  have  had  an  influence :  "  Get 
you  no  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass  in  your  purses :  no 
wallet  for  your  journey,  neither  two  coats,  nor  shoes, 
nor  staff."  ^  They  must  have  remembered,  too,  how 
he  had  lived,  "  ministered  unto  of  the  substance  "  of 
Joanna  and  Susanna  and  Mary.^  He  wanders  in 
vain,  then,  among  the  mazes  of  the  exegetical 
difficulties  attending  these  passages  who  does  not 
discern  the  incontestable  fact  that  in  this  little  com- 
munity in  Jerusalem  was  cherished  the  deathless 
spirit  of  Jesus,  the  love  that  never  tires  in  the  end- 
less tasks  of  kindness — was  cherished  and  kept  alive, 
to  be  passed  on  by  this  feeble  band  to  its  long  course 
of  beneficence  through  the  ages. 

'  Matt.  X.  9  f.  '^  Luke  viii.  3. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL 


In  striking  contrast  with  the  procedure  of  the  primi- 
tive-Christian community  in  Jerusalem,  considered 
in  the  foregoing  chapter,  is  the  attitude  of  the  apostle 
to  the  gentiles  toward  tlie  social  question.  Instead 
of  the  empirical  enthusiasm  of  the  first  Christian 
socialism,  which  evaporated  before  it  could  be 
permanently  realised,  and  which  has  left  no  other 
result  than  a  doubtful  record  in  Acts,  we  have 
received  from  the  reasoner  Paul  a  few  fruitful 
principles,  out  of  which  have  proceeded  issues  that 
show  him  to  have  builded  better  than  he  knew. 
To  practical  problems  it  was  the  apostle's  method  to 
apply  the  touchstone  of  a  fundamental  doctrine 
assumed  to  need  no  proof  Thus  he  deals  with  the 
question  of  marriage,  of  divorce  in  case  one  of  the 
parties  is  an  unbeliever,  of  the  participation  of 
women  unveiled  in  the  public  services  of  religion,  of 

159 


160  KICH  AND  POOR 

the  eating  of  flesh  offered  to  idols,  and  of  the  right 
use  of  spiritual  gifts.^ 

It  is,  then,  rather  with  inferences  from  grounds 
supposed  to  be  accepted  by  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness of  the  time  than  with  direct  and  explicit 
teachings  that  we  have  to  do  in  the  study  of  the 
apostle's  attitude  toward  the  social  issues  in  question. 
Of  pointed  expressions  of  sympathy  with  the  poor 
and  of  antipathy  to  wealth  there  are  no  examples  in 
his  writings.  He  does  not  appear  to  have  realised  so 
keenly  as  did  Jesus  the  perils  of  riches  to  the 
spiritual  life,  and  the  distress  and  suffering  of  the 
poor  did  not  move  him  to  pronounce  a  beatitude 
upon  them,  as  if  he  thought  them  especially 
susceptible  to  the  invitation  and  the  motives  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  He  was  not,  moreover,  so  intensely 
occupied  as  was  Jesus  with  the  social  question.  His 
attention  was  directed  in  the  main  to  the  elaboration 
and  defence  of  his  "  gospel,"  his  original  doctrine  of 
salvation  through  Christ,  of  atonement,  and  justifica- 
tion by  faith.  The  great  gentile  mission  and  the 
contest  with  the  Jewish  -  Christian  apostles  in 
Jerusalem  that  the  advocacy  of  it  brought  upon  him, 
made   large   demands   upon    his   interest    and    his 

'  See  the  writer's  Paul:  the  Man,  the  Missionary,  aiid  the 
Teacher,  1898,  pp.  40-46. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  161 

energies.  It  is,  accordingly,  not  surprising  that 
social  questions  are  in  the  main  only  incidentally 
treated  in  his  Epistles,  which  were  writings  of  the 
occasion,  called  forth  by  the  special  needs  of  the 
little  hands  of  believers,  and  that  it  sometimes 
appears  as  if  he  would  not  have  addressed  himself  to 
them  at  all  but  for  the  particular  exigencies  made 
known  to  him  by  messengers  or  letters  from  the 
churches. 

A  striking  feature  of  the  apostle's  ethics  is  the 
fundamental  importance  of  the  religious  interest  to 
the  solution  of  moral  problems.  Through  this 
interest,  which  lay  very  near  his  heart,  the  religious 
doctrine  of  the  common  sonship  of  God  pertaining  to 
all  believers  is  made  the  basis  of  the  principle  of 
social  equality  :  "  Eor  ye  are  all  sons  of  God,  through 
faith,  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  were 
baptized  into  Christ  did  put  on  Christ.  There  can 
be  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  can  be  neither  bond 
nor  free,  there  can  be  no  male  and  female  :  for  ye  are 
all  one  man  in  Christ  Jesus."  ^  The  distinctions  of 
nationality,  of  rank,  of  station,  of  outward  condition, 
of  slave  and  freeman,  of  man  and  woman,  disappear, 
are  no  longer  taken  into  account,  among  those  who 
through  baptism  have  come  into  the  mystic  fellow- 

J  Gal.  iii.  26-28. 

u 


162  EICH  AND  POOE 

ship  with  Christ,  "  where  there  cannot  be  Greek  and 
Jew,  circumcision  and  uncircumcision,  barbarian, 
Scythian,  bondman,  freeman  :  but  Christ  is  all,  and 
in  all."  ^  They  all  having  been  "  made  to  drink  of 
one  Spirit,"  henceforth  "know  no  man  after  the 
flesh  " ;  being  "  in  Christ,"  they  are  a  "  new  creation," 
"  the  old  things  are  passed  away ;  behold,  they  are  all 
become  new."  ^  The  principle  as  here  stated  by  the 
apostle  suffers  from  the  limitation  that  its  application 
is  only  to  the  believers,  to  those  who  have  entered 
into  the  mystic  fellowship  with  Jesus. 

The  idea,  however,  contains  the  potency  of  social 
and  political  transformation.  So  far  as  it  might  reign 
in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  become  effective  in  human 
society,  it  would  remove  the  barriers  of  enmity  between 
nations,  dissolve  hatred  and  bitterness  between 
antagonists,  turn  the  hearts  of  the  rich  toward  the 
poor,  break  down  the  division- walls  of  class  and 
caste,  and  establish  the  supremacy  of  human  brother- 
hood. "It  is  a  great  error  to  think  that  such 
principles  could  remain  without  outward  effect.  .  .  . 
Would  the  thought  be  able  to  make  its  way  that 
slave  and  freeman  are  equally  good  without  altering 
the  condition  of  the  slave  ;  or  that  man  and  woman 
are  equally  good  without  transforming  the  outward 

1  Col.  iii.  11.  M  Cor.  xii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  v.  16,  17. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  163 

position  of  woman ;  or  that  all  nationalities  are  of 
equal  worth  without  producing  a  different  relation 
between  nations  ?  He  who  thinks  this  only  shows 
thereby  how  little  he  understands  that  the  idea  is 
irresistible  in  its  operation,  is  a  power  that  must  work 
itself  out,  because  it  is  the  most  living  thing,  is,  in 
fact,  immortal."  ^ 

Another  principle  of  the  apostle's  ethics  that  finds 
so  frequent  expression  in  his  Epistles  as  to  show  how 
much  he  had  it  at  heart,  is  that  of  love  among  the 
brethren,  who,  being  "one  man  in  Christ  Jesus," 
should  be  united  in  bonds  of  sympathy  and  affection. 
In  his  immortal  Hymn  to  Love,  in  which  the  poetic 
genius  of  his  race  found  its  finest  classical  expression, 
he  sets  forth  with  masterly  comprehension  and  in 
felicitous  phrases  the  excellences  of  this  divine 
principle.^  His  admonition  to  the  brethren  is  that 
they  "  let  love  be  without  hypocrisy,"  that  they  be 
'•  tenderly  affectioned  one  to  another  in  love  of  the 
brethren,"  and  that  they  "  owe  no  man  anything,  save 
to  love  one  another :  for  he  that  loveth  his  neighbour 
hath  fulfilled  the  law."  ^  A  man  is,  indeed,  accounted 
righteous  on  the  ground  of  his  faith,  but  love  is 
greater  than  faith,*  and  this  latter  becomes  effective 

'  Bugge,  Das  ChristentJium  als  Religion  des  Fortschrits,  1900, 
p.  15.  '•^  1  Cor.  xiii. 

»  Bom.  xii.  9,  10  ;  xiii.  8  *  1  Cor.  xiii.  13. 


164  EICH  AND  POOE 

as  a  principle  of  life  only  when  "working  through 
love."  ^  From  this  point  of  view  the  apostle  expresses 
in  a  few  words  the  great  principle  of  the  ideal  social 
order,  when  he  tells  the  believers  that  they  "  were 
called  for  freedom,"  but  that  they  should  not  use 
their  freedom  as  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  "  through 
love  be  servants  one  to  another."^  He  who  could 
address  this  exhortation  to  service  to  all  the  members 
of  a  Christian  community  without  regard  to  dis- 
tinctions of  class,  rank,  or  station,  could  have 
recognised  no  differences  of  outward  circumstances, 
of  riches  or  poverty,  as  essentially  separating  men 
from  one  another  and  exempting  them  from  the 
duty  of  reciprocal  helpfulness.  Not  otherwise  could 
he  teach  to  whom  the  crown  and  consummation  of 
the  Christian  life  was  the  possession  of  the  Spirit,  the 
"  fruits "  of  which  are  "  love,  longsuffering,  and 
kindness."  ^ 

On  no  exhortation  to  the  believers  does  the  apostle 
place  more  emphasis  than  on  this  exhortion  to 
brotherly  love,  to  none  does  he  more  frequently 
return  with  heartfelt  interest  and  with  abundant 
variation  of  expression.  Being  "  one  body  in  Christ," 
the  believers  are  "  severally  members  one  of  another." 

^  8l  dydTTTis  fvepyovfi^v/],  Gal.  v.  6. 

^  Sid  TTJi  dydirrj^  SoiAet^rrft  dXX?;\oi5,  Gal.  v.  13. 

3  Gal.  V.  22. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  165 

"  In  love  of  the  brethren  "  they  should  "  in  honour 
prefer  one  another,"  and  no  man  should  "put  a 
stumbling-block  or  an  occasion  to  fall  in  his  brother's 
way."  He  walks  not  in  love  who  by  any  self-gratifica- 
tion causes  his  brother  to  be  "grieved"  (Xvrrelrai, 
morally  disturbed),  for  "  love  worketh  no  ill  to  the 
neighbour."  This  principle  is  regarded  as  having  the 
divine  sanction,  for  "  ye  yourselves  are  taught  of  God 
to  love  one  another,"  Its  application  is  extended 
beyond  the  circle  of  the  Christian  fraternity,  and  in 
this  wider  sweep  is  declared  to  be  essential  to  the 
attainment  of  participation  in  the  blessedness  of  the 
impending  kingdom  of  God.  "  The  Lord  make  you 
to  increase  and  abound  in  love  one  toward  another, 
and  toward  all  men,  even  as  we  also  do  toward 
you;  to  the  end  he  may  stablish  your  hearts  un- 
blameable  in  holiness  before  our  God  and  Father,  at 
the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  with  all  his  saints." 
Out  of  the  fulness  of  his  heart  he  exhorts  that  love 
be  made  to  "  abound  more  and  more."  ^ 

In  accordance  with  the  religious  principle  already 
referred  to,  that  all  the  believers  are  "  one  man  "  in 
Christ,  we  should  expect  to  find  in  the  apostle  an 
inclination  to  a  levelling  of  outward  social  dis- 
tinctions.     Such   in  fact   is   the   tendency   of    the 

'  Rom.  xii.  10  ;  xiv.  13  ;  1  Thess.  iii.  12 ;  iv.  9,  10. 


166  RICH  AND  POOR 

kiudly  words  to  the  Corinthians  respecting  the  lowly 
estate  of  their  little  community.  Although  they  are 
for  the  most  part  men  of  humble  callings,  "  not  many 
wise  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many 
noble,"  yet  in  their  Christian  profession  and  function 
they  are  chosen  of  God  to  "  put  to  shame  them  that 
are  wise."  The  weak  and  base  things  of  the  world, 
the  despised,  are  appointed  to  bring  to  nought  those 
things  that  in  the  view  of  "  the  world  "  are  high  and 
strong,  "  that  no  flesh  should  glory  before  God."  The 
poor  are  thus  placed  not  on  an  equality  with  the  rich, 
but  above  them  by  reason  of  the  spiritual  ministry 
that  they  perform,  just  as  in  another  place  he  speaks 
of  the  same  persons  "as  poor,  yet  making  many 
rich."^ 

A  similar  kindly  disposition  toward  the  poor  is 
manifested  in  the  apostle's  reproof  of  the  Corinthians 
for  their  unseemly  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  is  not  possible  for  them,  he  says,  really  to  eat  the 
Lord's  Supper,  when  the  rich  bring  their  abundant 
provisions  of  food  and  drink,  and  the  poor  have 
nothing,  so  that  "one  is  hungry,  and  another  is 
drunken."  The  reproof  falls  like  a  blow  upon  those 
who  forget  the  needy  in  the  pointed  question : 
"  Despise  ye  the  congregation  of  God,  and  put  them 

»  1  Cor.  i.  26-29  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  10. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  167 

to  shame  that  have  not  ? "  ^  "While  the  stress  of  the 
censure  is  laid  upon  the  unfitting  observance  of  the 
sacrament  in  making  it  a  feast,  wherein  he  "  drinketh 
judgment  unto  himself"  who  does  not  rightly  "dis- 
cern the  body  "  of  the  Lord,  the  incidental  reference 
to  those  who  "  despise  "  and  "  put  to  shame "  the 
poor  and  lowly  shows  the  quick  sympathy  of  the 
apostle  with  this  class  of  persons.  These  should 
be  duly  esteemed  as  belonging  to  the  Christian 
community,  and  though  "  feeble,"  yet  "  necessary," 
just  as  we  "bestow  more  abundant  honour"  upon 
"  uncomely  "  parts  of  the  body. 

Occasion  will  be  taken  farther  on  to  speak  of  the 
apostle's  attitude  toward  worldly  goods  in  general. 
It  is  appropriate  to  mention  here  his  deep  aversion 
to  the  greedy  pursuit  of  wealth.  This  he  regarded 
as  totally  unfitting  a  man  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Wealth  itself  he  nowhere  declares  to  be  a  dis- 
qualification for  this  great  inheritance,  and  does  not 
appear  to  have  thought  that  it  would  require  a  miracle 
of  grace  to  save  a  rich  man.  He  however  classes 
the  "  covetous  "  and  "  extortioners  "  with  fornicators, 
idolaters,  and  drunkards,  and  forbids  the  Corinthians 
to  eat  with  them.  Again  he  mentions  them  with 
abusers   of    themselves   with    men,   adulterers,   and 

'  1  Cor.  xi.  20-22. 


168  KICH  AND  POOK 

thieves,  and  declares  that  they  "  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  ^  The  harshness  of  the  language 
and  judgment  in  these  passages  shows  not  only 
the  apostle's  deep  -  seated  hostility  to  the  eager 
pursuit  of  gain,  but  also  his  conviction  that  the 
greedy  disposition  involves  a  spirit  and  feeling 
incompatible  with  fitness  for  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

The  seeking  of  gain  at  the  expense  of  another, 
wronging,  defrauding  a  brother,  incurs  the  apostle's 
unqualified  censure  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians 
about  going  to  law  on  account  of  disputes  over 
property.^  The  stress  of  the  rebuke  falls  on  the 
practice  of  taking  their  contentions  about  possessions 
before  heathen  magistrates  rather  than  having 
tribunals  of  their  own,  since  they,  who  are,  in  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  to  judge  the  world  and  even 
angels,  ought  to  be  competent  to  decide  their 
temporal  af5'airs  among  themselves.  "  It  is  altogether 
a  defect "  in  them,  he  says,  that  they  have  lawsuits 
one  with  another.  "  Why  not  rather  take  wrong  ? 
why  not  rather  be  defrauded  ? "  Let  those  who  do 
wrong,  and  defraud  their  brethren,  know  that  "  the 
unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 
The    teaching   that   one    should   suffer   wrong  and 

»  1  Cor.  V.  11  ;  vi.  9,   10.  -  1  Cor.  vi.  1-10. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  169 

be  defrauded  without  seeking  redress  at  law 
reminds  us  of  Jesus'  words  as  reported  in  Luke : 
"  Of  him  that  taketh  away  thy  goods  ask  them  not 
again." 

While  the  stress  of  the  reproof  was  doubtless  due 
to  a  desire  to  keep  his  believers  from  association 
with  unbelievers,  the  words  quoted  denote  a  con- 
temptuous disregard  of  earthly  possessions,  which 
are  of  so  small  importance  that  it  is  better  to  suffer 
fraud  than  seek  them  when  illegally  taken  away. 
Accordingly,  we  find  the  apostle  scrupulously  abstain- 
ing from  making  gain  out  of  his  labours  as  a 
missionary.  The  right,  however,  to  receive  from 
his  churches  a  living  he  unequivocally  maintains. 
As  an  "apostle,"  he  asserts  that  he  may  fairly 
demand  from  them  support  for  himself  and  a  wife, 
had  he  had  one,  and  to  "forbear  working."  The 
soldier  does  not  serve  "  at  his  own  charges,"  and  he 
who  plants  a  vineyard  "eatetli  the  fruit  thereof." 
In  support  of  this  contention  he  quotes  a  current 
"  word  of  the  Lord,"  and  by  means  of  the  allegorical 
interpretation  buttresses  his  argument  with  a  quota- 
tion from  the  Old  Testament  about  not  muzzling  the 
ox  that  treads  out  the  corn.  Having  "  sown  spiritual 
things,"  he  thinks  it  not  a  great  matter  that  he 
should  reap  of  their  "  carnal  things  " — a  declaration 


170  RICH  AND  POOR 

in  which  is  plainly  implied  a  depreciation  of  material 
possessions.^ 

A  poor  man,  obliged  to  work  at  a  wretched  handi- 
craft for  his  subsistence,  the  apostle  writes  no  word 
of  repining  at  his  condition  and  no  word  denoting 
envy  of  the  rich.  He  glories  in  his  renunciation  of 
support  from  the  Corinthians,  as  if  there  were 
internal  conditions  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  that 
rendered  such  a  renunciation  advisable.  He  plainly 
intimates  that  his  refusal  of  support  was  prejudicial 
to  his  apostolic  dignity,  and  asks  whether  he  had 
sinned  in  abasing  himself  that  the  church  there 
might  be  exalted,  because  he  had  preached  to  them 
the  gospel  of  God  for  nought.^  Consistently  with 
the  principle  that  the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire, 
he  received  contributions  to  his  subsistence  from  the 
Philippians,  "robbing  other  churches,"  as  he  writes 
to  the  Corinthians,  that  he  might  minister  to  them. 
Accordingly,  he  writes  to  the  Philippians  that  he 
rejoices  greatly  in  the  Lord  that  they  "  have  revived 
their  thought"  for  him.  He  disclaims  having 
actually  been  in  want,  and  says  he  has  learned  in 
whatever  state  he  is,  therein  to  be  content.  The 
higher  uses  of  giving  are  indicated  in  the  declaration 
that   he   did   not   seek   the   gift  for  itself,  but  for 

'  1  Cor.  ix.  1-19.  2  2  Cor.  xi.  7. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  171 

the  "  fruit  that  increased  to  the  account "  of  the 

Philippians.     Their  offering  he  calls  an  "  odour  of  a 

sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well  pleasing  to 

God."     The  reward  of  the  givers  will  be  abundant 

in  the  Messianic  kingdom.^ 

The   most  striking   indication   of    the    apostle's 

interest  in   the  poor  appears   in  his   zeal   for  the 

collections  in  his  churches  in  behalf  of  the  needy 

believers  in  Jerusalem.     The  general  principle  upon 

which    he    proceeded    was    the   duty   of    ministry 

(BtaKovla)  to  the  sick,  the  poor,  and  strangers,  for 

which  an   office   was   established  in  the  churches. 

Accordingly,  he  exhorts  the  Eomans  to  communicate 

{jcoivwveco)   to   the   necessities   of    the    saints,   and 

commands   that   those   whose  function  is  ministry 

should  wait  on  their  ministry.^     He  declares  that 

he  was  "  zealous  "  to  fulfil  the  wishes  of  the  apostles 

in  Jerusalem,  expressed  at  the  Conference,  that  he 

should  "  remember  the  poor."  ^    Although  he  demands 

of  his  churches  no   such  extreme  sacrifice  as   the 

devotion  of  all  one's  possessions  for  this  purpose,  he 

shows  a  keen  sense  of  the  worth  of  renunciation  as  a 

moral  principle  in  the  citation  of  the  example  of 

Jesus,  who,  although  he  was  rich  in  his  pre-existent 

1  Phil.  iv.  15-19. 

-  Kom.  xii.  7,  13  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  15  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  4  ;  ix.  13. 

^  Gal.  ii.  10. 


172  RICH  AND  POOR 

state,  yet  in  assuming  flesh  became  poor  for  the  sake 
of  men.^  Far  from  wishing  to  lay  upon  his  churches 
a  grievous  burden  on  account  of  this  charity,  he 
deprecates  a  too  liberal  giving  on  the  part  of  those 
in  Macedonia,  and  asks  the  Corinthians  to  "  lay  by 
in  store,  as  each  one  may  prosper,"  in  order  that  the 
collection  may  be  ready  when  he  comes."  He 
recognises  the  principle  of  freedom,  abstains  from 
the  use  of  constraint,  and  attaches  due  importance 
to  the  disposition  of  the  giver.  Each  one  should 
give  as  he  has  "purposed  in  his  heart."  None 
should  give  "grudgingly,  or  of  necessity,"  for  this 
would  not  be  religiously  right,  since  God  loves 
cheerfulness  in  giving.^ 

It  is  not  without  interest  to  observe  that  the 
whole  matter  of  the  collection  for  the  poor  of 
the  Jerusalem  Christians  is  regarded  by  the  apostle 
from  a  religious  point  of  view.  This  is  apparent 
in  the  stress  that  is  laid  upon  the  compensation  that 
would  be  made  to  the  givers.  These  would  be 
rewarded,  he  says,  by  a  special  act  of  divine  grace. 
The  Corinthians  are  assured  that  far  from  coming  to 
want  by  reason  of  their  liberality,  God  is  able  to 
make  all  grace  abound  to  them,  so  that  they  will 


'  2  Cor.  viii.  9  ;  Phil.  ii.  5.  "^  1  Cor.  xvi.  2. 

'  2  Cor.  ix.  7  f. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  1V3 

always  have  sufficient  of  everything.  He  that 
supplieth  seed  to  the  sower  and  bread  for  food 
will  supply  and  multiply  their  seed  for  sowing 
and  increase  the  fruits  of  their  righteousness  or 
benevolence.  In  urging  upon  the  Corinthians 
"readiness"  in  the  matter  of  the  contribution  to 
the  poor  believers  in  Jerusalem — a  readiness  that 
is  "  acceptable  according  as  a  man  hath,  not  accord- 
ing as  he  hath  not " — he  disclaims  exhorting  them  to 
give  "that  others  may  be  eased,"  and  they  "dis- 
tressed," but  "that  there  may  be  equality,"  their 
"  abundance  being  a  supply  at  this  present  time " 
for  the  want  of  the  saints  in  Jerusalem,  that  the 
abundance  also  of  the  latter  may  become  a  supply 
for  the  want  of  the  Corinthians  in  the  future.  This 
exhortation  is  grounded  on  the  story  of  the  manna, 
he  that  gathered  much  of  which  had  nothing  over, 
and  he  that  gathered  little  had  no  lack.^  This 
citation  from  Exod.  xvi.  18  furnishes  an  appropriate 
analogy  only  as  "  the  general  purpose  of  the  divine 
guidance  of  the  world  admits  of  its  application  to 
the  circumstances,"  since  in  the  case  of  the  manna 
there  was  no  mutual  adjustment  of  unequally 
divided    goods.'^       But    one    may    fairly    presume 

1  2  Cor.  viii.  14  f.  ;  ix.  8  f. 
^  See  Schmiedel  in  Hundcommentar  on  the  passage. 


174  RICH  AND  POOR 

that  to  Paul  the  whole  matter  was  in  the  hands 
of  God. 

Although  the  apostle  recognised  the  fact  and  the 
right  of  private  possessions,  the  obligation  to  work 
and  attend  to  one's  own  business,  and  the  duty  of 
parents  to  lay  up  for  their  children,^  liis  feeling 
toward  property  and  the  material  concerns  of  the 
world  was  on  the  whole  one  of  indifference  and 
depreciation.  His  belief  in  the  impending  end  of  the 
world  disturbed  his  perspective  of  social  relations  and 
of  all  temporal  affairs.  "  I  say  brethren,"  he  writes  to 
the  Corinthians,  "  the  time  is  shortened,  that  hence- 
forth both  those  that  have  wives  may  be  as  though 
they  had  none ;  and  those  that  weep,  as  though  they 
wept  not;  and  those  that  rejoice,  as  though  they  rejoiced 
not ;  and  those  that  buy,  as  though  they  possessed 
not ;  .  .  .  for  the  fashion  of  this  world  passeth  away."  ^ 
An  ascetic  view  of  life,  grounded  on  his  doctrine  of  the 
flesh,  appears  to  have  co-operated,  with  this  limited 
perspective,  due  to  his  looking  for  the  great  advent 
of  Christ,  to  determine  his  attitude  toward  marriage.^ 
Since,  moreover,  the  affairs  of  the  world  were  so  soon 
to  come  to  an  end,  it  was  not  worth  while  to  enter 
upon  a  campaign  of  social  reform.    Hence  the  passive 

>  1  Theas,  iv.  11  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  14.  »  1  Cor.  vii.  24  f. 

^  1  Cor.  vii.  1-7, 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL  175 

and  tolerating  attitude  toward  slavery.  Hence  the 
exhortation  to  the  slave  to  be  content  in  his  bondage. 
It  is  enough  that  he  is  "the  Lord's  freeman,"  and 
that  at  the  early  coming  of  the  Lord  he  would,  as  a 
Christian,  enter  into  "  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the 
sons  of  God."  While,  then,  the  apostle's  teaching 
contains  some  fruitful  principles  of  social  life,  there 
could  obviously  not  be  made  at  his  hands  an  applica- 
tion of  them  to  the  wide  domain  of  the  social  order. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE   LATER   EPISTLES  AND   OTHER   NEW   TESTAMENT 
WRITINGS 

A  DISCUSSION  in  detail  of  the  authorship  and  date  of 
the  various  New  Testament  writings  is  foreign  to  the 
purpose  of  this  work,  and  a  dogmatic  expression  of 
opinion  on  the  matter  is  foreign  to  the  writer's 
disposition.  Accordingly,  in  considering  the  teach- 
ing of  some  of  the  Epistles  traditionally  ascribed  to 
Paul  along  with  the  later  writings,  he  simply 
indicates  his  inclination  to  the  critical  judgment  that 
questions  their  genuineness.^  In  the  present  case 
no  issues  of  importance  follow  from  the  classification 
of    the    several    books,    since    in    the    Epistles   in 

*  For  a  detailed  discussion  of  Hebrews,  Colossians,  Ephesians, 
and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  the  reader  is  referred  to  tlie  writer's 
volume  (iii. )  in  the  International  Handbooks  to  the  New  Testament, 
1901,  and  for  a  summary  consideration  of  James,  the  Petrine 
Epistles,  and  Jude,  to  his  articles  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica, 
vols.  ii.  and  iii. 

176 


THE  LATER  EPISTLES  177 

question  the  teaching  on  the  social  problems 
does  not  essentially  differ  from  the  indisputably 
Pauline. 

We  find,  then,  that  the  attitude  toward  wealth 
and  poverty  of  the  writers  whose  works  date  from 
the  end  of  the  first  and  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century  is  not  essentially  different  from  that  assumed 
in  the  earlier  books  of  the  canon.  Wealth  is 
regarded  as  a  peril  and  a  hindrance  to  the  Christian 
life,  although  no  vigorous  denunciation  of  the  rich 
appears  except  in  the  so-called  Epistle  of  James. 
As  in  the  time  of  Paul,  the  church  is  composed  chiefly 
of  the  poorer  class  of  the  people.  The  church  in 
Smyrna  is  addressed  as  in  "  tribulation  and  poverty," 
and  in  James  the  readers  are  said  to  be  the  "  poor  of 
this  world,  rich  in  faith,"  and  the  rich  are  charged 
with  oppressing  some  of  them  who,  as  labourers, 
have  reaped  their  fields.^ 

After  the  manner  of  Paul,  the  writer  of  Ephesians 
classes  avarice  with  the  basest  offences  :  "  For  this 
ye  know  of  a  surety,  that  no  fornicator,  nor  unclean 
person,  uor  covetous  man,-  which  is  an  idolater,  hath 
any  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ " ;  "  But 
fornication,  and   all  uncleanuess,  and   covetousness 

'  Rev.  ii.  9  ;  James  ii.  5  ;  v.  4. 

-  irXeov^KT-qi,  eagerly  desirous  of  gain,  avaricious. 

12 


178  KICK  AND  POOE 

[avarice],  let  it  not  be  named  among  you."  ^  Like- 
wise the  writer  of  Hebrews  exhorts  his  readers  to 
cast  themselves  upon  the  divine  care  with  respect  to 
worldly  possessions  and  the  conditions  that  may  arise 
from  want  of  them :  "  Be  ye  free  from  the  love  of 
money ;  content  with  such  things  as  ye  have :  for 
himself  hath  said,  I  will  in  no  wise  fail  thee,  neither 
will  I  in  any  wise  forsake  thee.  So  that  with  good 
courage  we  say, 

The  Lord  is  my  helper  ;  I  will  not  fear : 
What  shall  man  do  unto  me  ? "  ^ 

These  words  remind  us  of  the  sublime  faith  in 
Providence  implied  in  Jesus'  exhortation  to  take  no 
anxious  thought  about  food  and  clothing  and  the 
things  of  to-morrow.  Quite  in  the  spirit  of  the 
apostle,  whose  zeal  in  behalf  of  the  collection  for 
the  needy  believers  in  Jerusalem  we  have  considered 
in  the  foregoing  chapter,  the  same  writer  declares 
that,  instead  of  stealing,  a  man  should  "  labour, 
working  with  his  hands,  that  he  may  have  whereof 
to  give  to  him  that  hath  need."  ^ 

At  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  probably  in  the  early  years  of  the  second 

1  Eph.  V.  3,  5.  ■•*  Heb.  xiii.  5. 

»  Eph.  iv.  28. 


THE  LATEK  EPISTLES  179 

century,  the  presence  of  rich  men  in  the  church  calls 
forth  from  the  writer  some  special  admonitions  for 
their  benefit.  They  are  exposed  to  danger  to  the 
spiritual  life,  and  need  to  be  reminded  of  the  frail 
tenure  by  which  they  hold  their  possessions :  "  But 
they  that  desire  to  be  rich  fall  into  a  temptation  and 
a  snare  and  many  foolish  and  hurtful  lusts,  such  as 
drown  men  in  destruction  and  perdition.  For  the 
love  of  money  is  a  root  of  all  kinds  of  evil :  which 
some  reaching  after  have  been  led  astray  from  the 
faith,  and  have  pierced  themselves  through  with 
many  sorrows."  "  Godliness  with  contentment "  he 
regards  as  "  a  great  gain,"  and  he  reminds  his  readers, 
some  of  whom  may  be  assumed  to  have  been  tempted 
by  the  allurements  of  riches,  that  "  we  brought 
nothing  into  the  world  "  and  "  can  carry  nothing  out 
of  it."  With  "  food  and  covering "  they  should  be 
content.  To  those  who  are  actually  rich  he  addresses 
the  sound  admonition :  "  Charge  them  that  are  rich 
in  this  present  world  [age,  iv  tm  vvv  alwvi],  that 
they  be  not  highminded,  nor  have  their  hope  set  on 
the  uncertainty  of  riches,  but  on  God,  who  giveth 
us  richly  all  things  to  enjoy ;  that  they  do  good, 
that  they  be  rich  in  good  works,  that  they  be 
ready  to  distribute,  willing  to  communicate  \kolv(o- 
vLKoi)<;,   free    in    giving] ;    laying   up    in    store    for 


180  RICH  AND  POOR 

themselves  a  good  foundation  against  the  time  to 
come."  ^ 

That  persons  possessing  considerable  fortunes  had 
attached  themselves  to  the  church  is  further  apparent 
from  the  admonition  addressed  to  the  women  among 
them  by  the  author  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  against 
extravagance  and  display  in  dress :  "  In  like  manner, 
that  women  adorn  themselves  in  modest  apparel, 
with  shamefastness  and  sobriety ;  not  with  braided 
hair,  and  gold  or  pearls  or  costly  raiment ;  but  (which 
becometh  women  professing  godliness)  through  good 
works."  ^  In  similar  terms  the  writer  of  First  Peter 
exhorts  the  women  to  let  their  adorning  be  "  not  that 
outward  adorning  of  plaiting  the  hair,  and  of  wearing 
gold,  or  of  putting  on  apparel ;  but  the  hidden  man 
of  the  heart  in  that  which  is  not  corruptible,  a  meek 
and  quiet  spirit."  ^ 

The  writer   of    these    Epistles    shows    a    keen 

^  1  Tim.  vi.  6,  9,  10,  17-19.  The  exhortation  to  benevolence 
reminds  us  not  only  of  Jesus'  teaching  but  also  of  words  in 
Didachc,  i.  5,  iv.  8  :  "  Give  to  every  one  that  asks,  and  demand  it 
not  again,  for  it  is  the  Father's  will  that  out  of  the  gifts  of  grace 
that  each  one  receives  it  be  given  to  all."  "Thou  shalt  not  turn 
the  needy  away,  but  shalt  share  all  things  with  thy  brother,  and 
thou  shalt  not  say  that  anything  is  thy  own  property,  for  if  ye  are 
companions  in  the  things  that  are  immortal,  how  much  more  in 
those  that  are  perishable  ?  "  See  essentially  the  same  teaching  as 
this  last  in  Barnabas  xix.  8.  It  is  evident  that  the  writer  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  expressed  a  prevalent  social  ideal  of  his  time. 

'^  1  Tim.  ii.  9,  10.  ^  i  peter  iii.  3,  4. 


THE  LATEE  EPISTLES  181 

appreciation  of  worldly  possessions  when  they  take 
the  form  of  compensation  for  the  services  of  the 
minister.  He  appears  to  have  known  nothing  of 
Paul's  seK-sacrifice  in  serving  his  churches  without 
pay  and  of  his  glorying  in  not  being  a  burden  to 
them.  The  apostle's  theory,  however,  that  the 
labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire  he  sets  forth  with  great 
definiteness  and  force.  Just  as  the  soldier  is  paid  so 
as  to  be  free  from  entanglement  with  the  affairs  of 
this  life,  and  just  as  the  husbandman  who  labours 
must  be  the  first  to  partake  of  the  fruits,  so,  he  would 
have  it  to  be  inferred,  they  who  serve  the  church 
should  be  duly  compensated.  Even  "  the  elders  that 
rule  well "  should  be  counted  worthy  of  a  "  double 
honour,"  that  is,  honorarium,  "  especially  those  who 
labour  in  the  word  and  in  teaching."^  Yet  the 
writer's  odium  theologicum  did  not  suffer  him  to  let 
those  men  who  taught  "  a  different  doctrine  "  for  pay 
go  without  sharp  censure  for  "  supposing  that 
godliness  is  a  way  of  gain,"  teaching  that  they  ought 
not  "  for  filthy  lucre's  sake."  ^ 

1  2  Tim.  ii.  4-6;  1  Tim.  v.  17.  The  right  of  the  "true 
teacher"  to  support,  like  that  of  the  workman,  is  maintained  in 
Didache,  xiii.  2. 

"^  1  Tim.  vi.  5  ;  Tit.  i.  11.  Rogge  fcalls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  degeneracy  in  the  ethical  point  of  view  in  all  tliese  circles 
is  indicated  in  these  later  Epistles  with  one  exception  by  the 
apjjearance  in  the  place  of  the  word  TrXeove^la  of  the  drastic  and 
material  designations,  <pi\apyvpla  and  aitTxpoKepdr)i. 


182  EICH  AND  POOE 

In  the  later  Epistles  that  form  the  subject  of  this 
chapter  the  rich  man,  as  such,  does  not  appear  to  be 
regarded  as  in  danger  of  exclusion  from  the  kingdom 
of  God.     There   is   no   expression   of  Jesus'  doubt 
conveyed  in  the  comparison  of  the  camel  and  the 
needle's    eye,    although,    as     we     have     seen,    the 
temptations   to   which   the   rich   are   exposed    find 
distinct  statement,  and   the  avaricious  are  classed 
with  those  who  cannot  be  saved.     Otherwise,  rich 
and  poor,  high  and  low,  are  undiscriminated  with 
respect  to  the  divine  favour  and  the  divine  judgment. 
The  revelator  sees  the  kings  of  the  earth,  the  great, 
the  rich,  the  mighty  men,  hiding  themselves  with 
the  slaves  in  the  great  day  of  wrath  from  the  destroy- 
ing fury  of  the  Lamb ;  the  small  and  great,  the  rich 
and  the  poor,  the  free  and  the  bond,  receive  the 
mark  of  the  beast;    and  among  the  "saints"  are 
reckoned    those    of    high   and    low   degree.'^      The 
writer  of  James  deprecates  "  respect  of  persons,"  and 
recommends  the  fulfilment  of  "  the  royal  law,"  the 
love   of  the   neighbour   as   one's   self,  whether  the 
neighbour  be  rich  or  poor.     If  "  the  brother  of  low 
degree  "  should  rejoice  in  that  he  is  exalted,  the  rich 
man  should  rejoice  in  that  he  is  made  low,  brought 
into  a  state  of  due  humiliation  before  God.     The 

^  Rev.  vi.  15  ;  xi.  18  ;  xiii.  16. 


THE  LATER  EPISTLES  183 

warning  against  "  respect  to  him  that  weareth  gay 
clothing  "  and  against  the  obsequious  haste  to  assign 
such  a  one  "  a  good  place "  in  the  assembly  or 
synagogue  plainly  indicates  that  there  was  no 
inclination  to  oppose  the  admission  of  rich  men  into 
the  Church.^ 

That  the  possession  of  riches  was  regarded  as  a 
serious  hindrance  to  the  service  of  God  is  evident 
from  the  tone  and  manner  in  which  the  rich  are 
addressed  by  the  writers  of  these  Epistles.  It  seems 
to  have  been  thought  necessary  to  admonish  them 
not  to  be  "  highminded  "  and  not  to  put  their  "  trust 
in  uncertain  riches,"  as  we  have  seen  in  the  case  of 
the  writer  of  First  Timothy.  The  writer  of  James 
strikes  a  note  of  warning  against  the  absorption  of 
the  rich  in  the  affairs  of  this  world,  in  trade  and 
the  prosecution  of  legitimate  business  ;  for  there  is 
no  intimation  that  the  procedure  of  those  whom  he 
addresses  was  dishonest.  "Go  to  now,"  he  exclaims, 
"ye  that  say,  To-day  or  to-morrow  we  will  go  into 
this  city,  and  spend  a  year  there,  and  trade,  and  get 
gain."  He  appears  to  think  that  the  entire  secular 
life  of  the  believers  who  have  great  possessions 
should  be  dominated  by  a  religious  interest,  and 
consecrated    by  a  dependence    upon    God.       They 

'  Jas.  i.  to  ;  ii.  2,  3,  8. 


184  RICH  AND  POOE 

should  not  glory  in  their  "vauntings,"  but  rather 
they  ought  to  say,  "  If  the  Lord  will,  we  shall  both 
live,  and  do  this  or  that."  "All  such  glorying  is 
evil."  ^ 

The  transitoriness  of  worldly  possessions,  the 
insecure  tenure  by  which  they  are  held,  is  regarded 
as  a  reason  for  not  trusting  in  them,  since  the 
fortune  of  the  rich  is  involved  in  that  of  their  riches. 
The  rich  man  "  shall  pass  away  as  the  flower  of  the 
grass.  For  the  sun  ariseth  with  the  scorching  wind, 
and  withereth  the  grass :  and  the  flower  thereof 
falleth,  and  the  grace  of  the  fashion  of  it  perisheth  : 
so  shall  the  rich  man  fade  away  in  his  goings."  ^ 

^  Jas.  iv,  13,  14.  In  Hermas  a  kindred  idea  is  expressed. 
Just  as  a  round  stone  is  not  suitable  for  a  building  until  something 
is  cut  off  from  it,  and  it  is  made  rectangular,  so  riches  must  be 
lopped  off,  since  those  rich  in  this  world  (aiuv)  cannot  be  useful 
to  God  unless  their  riches  are  removed  ( Vis.  iii.  6,  6).  And  again 
the  writer  declares  that  those  who  are  much  occupied  with  worldly 
affairs  sin  much,  being  distracted  about  their  business  and  not 
serving  God  (Sim.  iv.  5).  The  interference  of  riches  with  the 
spiritual  life  is  set  forth  to  the  effect  that  although  the  rich  man 
has  great  earthly  possessions,  yet  he  is  poor  toward  God,  being 
drawn  away  by  his  care  about  wealth,  so  that  he  makes  very  little 
confession  and  prayer  to  God,  and  what  he  does  make  is  feeble 
and  without  power  to  ascend  {Sim.  ii.  5). 

'•^  Jas.  i.  10,  11.  This  is  said  of  the  rich  man  simply  because 
he  is  rich,  and  not  because  he  has  gained  his  wealth  by  injustice  or 
dishonesty,  or  because  he  makes  a  wrong  use  of  it. — Hermas  finds 
also  that  those  who  gain  possession  of  this  world  (alwi'),  and  grow 
old  in  their  riches  do  not  lay  hold  upon  the  goods  of  the  future 
{Vis.  i.  8).  Likewise  those  who  indeed  have  faith,  but  also 
possess  the  riches  of  this  world,  deny  their  Lord  when  tribulation 


THE  LATEE  EPISTLES  185 

We  have  seen  the  attitude  of  one  of  the  sources 
of  the  third  Gospel  toward  the  rich,  and  it  is  in  place 
here  to  call  attention  to  a  similar  note  of  hostility  to 
wealth  and  its  possessors  struck  by  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  of  James.  After  the  general  condemnation 
of  the  rich  for  trading  and  getting  gain  that  has 
already  been  considered,  he  breaks  out  in  the 
following  sweeping  denunciation  of  them  :  "  Go  to 
now,  ye  rich,  weep  and  howl  for  your  miseries  that 
are  coming  upon  you.  Your  riches  are  corrupted, 
and  your  garments  are  moth-eaten.  Your  gold  and 
your  silver  are  rusted ;  and  their  rust  shall  be  for  a 
testimony  against  you,  and  shall  eat  your  flesh  as 
fire.  Ye  have  laid  up  your  treasure  in  the  last  days. 
Behold,  the  hire  of  the  labourers  who  mowed  your 
fields,  which  is  of  you  kept  back  by  fraud,  crieth  out : 

comes,  since  they  are  so  much  concerned  about  their  wealth  and 
the  prosecution  of  their  affairs  {Vis.  iii.  6).  The  rich  also  with 
difficulty  associate  with  the  poor  "servants  of  the  Lord,"  because 
they  fear  that  they  may  be  asked  for  something.  Such  will  hardly 
go  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  will  be  as  difficult  for  them  to 
enter  into  the  kingdom  as  for  a  man  to  walk  on  thistles  with  bare 
feet  {Sim.  ix.  20).  Furthermore,  just  as  the  author  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  finds  that  wealth  induces  pride,  so  the  writer  of 
James  sees  in  the  rich  the  oppressors  of  the  poor,  whom  they 
"  dishonour,"  and  whom  they  drag  before  the  judgment-seats,  while 
they  "blaspheme  the  name"  by  which  the  believers  arc  called 
(ii.  6,  7).  So  Didache  classes  among  those  guilty  of  all  abomina- 
tions, among  haters  of  the  truth,  persecutors  of  the  good,  lovers  of 
a  lie,  and  murderers  of  children,  those  wlio  liavc  no  pity  on  the 
poor,  comforters  of  the  rich,  and  lawless  judges  of  the  needy  (v.  2). 


186  EICH  AND  POOR 

and  the  cries  of  them  that  reaped  have  entered  into 
the  ears  of  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth.  Ye  have  lived 
delicately,  and  taken  your  pleasure ;  ye  have  nourished 
your  hearts  in  a  day  of  slaughter.  Ye  have  con- 
demned, ye  have  killed  the  righteous  one ;  he  doth 
not  resist  you."^  The  "miseries"  about  to  come 
upon  the  rich  were  doubtless  connected  in  the 
writer's  mind  with  the  impending  judgment  at  the 
Parousia.  There  is,  however,  no  threat  of  their 
exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  "  rust " 
upon  their  riches,  which  would  show  them  the 
perishable  nature  of  wealth,  will  "eat  their  flesh 
as  fire."  Physical  pain  is  the  most  that  can  be 
implied,  and  we  are  reminded  of  Paul's  judgment 
upon  the  incestuous  man — the  deliverance  of  him 
to  Satan  "  for  the  destruction  of  his  flesh,"  that  his 
"  spirit  might  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

The  condemnation  expressed  in  this  passage  is 
evidently  directed  against  the  rich  as  they  were  in 
general  known  to  the  writer.  If  there  were  any 
notable  exceptions,  he  neither  mentions  nor  implies 
them.  The  rich  are  grasping,  greedy,  hard-fisted, 
and  dishonest.  They  not  only  live  in  luxury,  but 
they  also  defraud  the  poor  labourers  who  have 
worked  for  them.     They  are  of  course  deaf  to  the 

1  Jai.  V.  1-6.  2  J  Qoi._  v_  5, 


THE  LATER  EPISTLES  187 

appeal  of  charity.  In  lines  not  so  strongly  drawn 
and  in  a  tone  without  bitterness  the  writer  of  the 
first  Epistle  to  John  describes  the  loveless  rich  : 
"  Whoso  hath  the  world's  goods,  and  beholdeth  his 
brother  in  need,  and  shutteth  up  his  compassion 
from  him,  how  doth  the  love  of  God  abide  in  him  ?"^ 
The  version  of  the  story  of  the  rich  young  man,  as 
given  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  is 
interesting  in  this  connection.  Jesus  says  to  the 
man :  "  Behold,  many  of  thy  brethren,  sons  of 
Abraham,  perish  in  filth,  and  die  of  hunger,  and  thy 
house  is  full  of  many  goods,  and  nothing  comes  out 
of  it  for  them."  ^ 

The  conclusion  that  must  be  drawn  from  the  study 

^  1  John  iii.  17.  The  writer  of  Hermas  takes  a  less  pessimistic 
view  of  the  rich,  and  assumes  their  charity  while  expatiating  on 
its  advantages  both  to  them  and  to  the  poor:  "The  poor  man, 
being  aided  by  the  rich  man,  prays  for  him,  giving  thanks  to  God 
for  the  one  who  gave  to  him.  The  other  is  zealous  in  the  interest 
of  the  poor  man,  knowing  that  the  prayer  of  the  latter  is  acceptable 
to  God.  Therefore  both  accomplish  the  work  :  the  poor  man  offers 
up  the  prayer  in  wliich  he  is  rich,  and  the  rich  man  likewise  gives 
to  the  needy  the  riclies  that  he  receives  from  the  Lord.  This  is  a 
gi'cat  work  and  acceptable  to  God.  .  .  ,  Both,  then,  become 
participators  in  the  work  of  the  just.  He  who  doeth  these  things 
will  not  be  forsaken  of  God,  and  will  be  enrolled  in  tlie  book  of  the 
living.  Blessed  are  those  who  have  [wealth],  and  know  that  they 
are  ricli  from  the  Lord  "  {Sim.  ii.  6,  7,  9). 

'•^  In  like  manner  Hermas  exhorts  the  rich  to  buy  afflicted  souls 
rather  than  fields  and  houses,  and  to  look  after  widows  and 
orphans.  For  this  purpose  the  Lord  made  them  rich,  that  they 
might  perform  all  such  ministries.  This  is  the  beautiful  and 
sacred  expenditure  that  has  uo  grief  or  fear,  but  joy  {Sim.  i.  8,  10). 


188  RICH  AND  POOR 

undertaken  in  this  chapter  is  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  books  in  question  respecting  earthly  possessions 
and  the  relation  of  rich  and  poor  is  substantially 
that  of  Jesus  set  forth  in  the  synoptic  Gospels,  while 
the  absence  of  reference  to  him  and  his  teachings 
and  example  is  remarkable.  His  spirit  rather  than 
his  words  and  life  appears  to  have  come  down  to 
these  writers.  Their  disregard  of  the  Gospel-tradition 
is  one  of  the  problems  of  primitive  Christianity. 


CHAPTER    IX 

THE  TRANSIENT  AND  THE   PERMANENT 

The  foregoing  discussion  of  the  points  of  view  and 
teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  several  New  Testament 
writers  regarding  earthly  possessions,  riches,  and 
poverty,  has,  it  may  be  hoped,  established  the 
proposition  already  laid  down  in  the  course  of  it, 
that  we  are  not  justified  in  looking  to  them  for  a 
detailed  consideration  of  social  problems  as  they 
exist  in  a  complex  society  like  that  of  our  day. 
Much  less  are  we  warranted  in  expecting  from  them 
a  solution  of  such  problems.  Without  assuming  that 
such  questions  did  or  did  not  lie  in  the  horizon  of 
their  thought,  it  is  sufficient  to  note  the  fact  that 
they  touched  them  only  in  a  general  way,  sometimes 
by  laying  down  principles  applicable  to  human 
nature  in  the  most  diversified  relations,  and  again 
by  making  requirements  that  could  have  only  a  very 
limited  application. 

189 


190  RICH  AND  POOR 

There  is  accordingly  suggested  an  important  dis- 
crimination that  should  be  kept  in  mind  by  all 
students  of  the  New  Testament — the  distinguishing 
of  the  transient  from  the  permanent  in  its  contents. 
The  recognition  of  these  two  features  of  these  writings, 
the  one  presenting  matters  that  are  of  only  temporary 
application,  and  the  other  principles  that  have  per- 
petual validity  and  worth,  is  the  logical  consequence 
of  the  judgment  that  the  New  Testament  books  are 
to  be  regarded  as  literature.  For  by  this  term  we 
connote  writings  the  authors  of  which  were  true 
children  of  their  age,  wrote  in  its  language,  adopted 
its  terminology,  shared  in  some  degree  its  limitations, 
interpreted  nature  by  its  science,  were  influenced  by 
its  social  conditions  and  development,  and  in  general 
looked  upon  the  world  and  human  life  from  its 
predominant  points  of  view.  So  far  as  they  transcend 
their  age,  and  declare  truths  that  are  everywhere  and 
always  fruitful  and  valid,  we  hail  them  as  children 
of  God,  "bearers  of  the  Spirit"  {irvevixaroi^opoi), 
endowed  with  a  divine  insight,  heralds  of  the  king- 
dom of  Truth. 

What  we  have  a  prioi'i  good  reason  to  expect  we 
find  in  fact  in  the  case  of  the  New  Testament  writers. 
They  show  themselves  to  have  been  true  children 
of  their  age  in  their  subjection  to  the  prevailing 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    191 

theological,  religious,  and  social  ideas  of  their  time 
and  people,  and  in  their  inability  in  some  respects 
to  rise  above  the  general  view  of  the  world  current 
among  them.  We  find,  accordingly,  such  conceptions 
as  that  God  is  "  well  pleased "  with  certain  "  sacri- 
fices," and  that  He  entertains  "  wrath  "  against  men, 
which  will  be  manifested  in  a  "  day  of  wrath,"  when 
"  eternal  destruction  "  will  fall  upon  them  that  know 
Him  not.^  The  Jewish  conception  of  demons  and 
demoniacal  possession  is  assumed  as  the  explanation 
of  certain  psycho-physical  phenomena  along  with 
the  tacit  or  open  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
mighty  personal  power  of  evil,  the  devil,  Satan,  or 
the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air.^  Another  example 
of  the  limitations  in  question  is  the  employment  by 
the  New  Testament  writers  of  the  erroneous  method 
of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  that  was  in  use 
by  their  contemporaries  and  known  as  the  allegorical, 
by  means  of  which  Scripture  was  perverted  from  its 
original  meaning.^ 

We  find  here  also  such  a  conception  of  prophecy 
as  that  a  prophet  might  foretell   several   hundred 

1  Heb.  xiii.  16  ;  Rom.  ii.  8  ;  v.  9  ;  ix.  22  ;  2  Thcss.  i.  8,  9. 

■■^  Matt.  iv.  1  ;  xvii.  18  ;  Mark  vii.  29  ;  John  xiii.  2  ;  1  Cor. 
V.  5  ;  vii.  5  ;  1  Thess.  ii.  18  ;  Eph.  ii.  2  ;  vi.  11  ;  1  John  iii.  8  ; 
Rev.  xii.  9  ;  xx.  2. 

3  Matt.  ii.  15,  18  ;  xxi.  5  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  10  ;  Gal.  iii.  16  ; 
iv.  22-27  ;  Heb.  ii.  6-8  ;  x.  5. 


192  EICH  AND  POOR 

years  beforehand  the  appearance  of  a  definite 
personality  together  with  details  of  his  life;  the 
naive  acceptance  and  record  as  facts  of  such  legendary 
stories  as  the  opening  of  graves  at  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus,  the  rising  of  "  saints,"  and  their  appearance  in 
Jerusalem  after  his  resurrection  ;  and  an  unquestion- 
ing belief  in  the  personal  coming  of  Jesus  in  glory 
to  establish  the  kingdom  of  God  within  a  generation 
or  two  after  his  death.^  Again,  those  writers  of 
New  Testament  books  cannot  be  regarded  as  looking 
at  the  world  and  human  life  from  a  point  of  view  in 
advance  of  their  times  who  while  giving  directions 
for  the  conduct  of  slaves,  neither  indicate  nor  intimate 
any  sense  of  the  wrong  and  evils  of  the  institution, 
and  make  no  recommendations  looking  to  its  abolition, 
while  with  respect  to  the  status  of  woman  they 
declare  her  subordination  to  man,  and  simply  tolerate 
marriage  as  the  less  of  two  evils,  giving  celibacy  the 
preference.^ 

It  would  take  us  too  far  from  the  present  purpose 
to  undertake  the  application  in  detail  of  the  distinc- 
tion of  transient  and  permanent  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,   to   inquire   whether   on   the   ground   of  his 

1  Matt.  ii.  6  ;  iii.  3  ;  iv,  14  ;  xxvii.  52,  53  ;  John  xii.  38  ; 
1  Thess.  iv.  15-18  ;  2  Thess.  i.  7-10. 

'•i  1  Cor.  vii.  1,  2,  7-9,  20-24,  38  ;  xiv.  34-36  ;  Epli.  v.  22,  23  ; 
vi.  5  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  11-15  ;  Tit.  ii.  5  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  1. 


THE  TEANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    193 

human  intelligence  he  must  be  assumed  a  p7'iori  to 
have  been  liable  to  error,  whether  in  fact  he  did 
err  in  any  matters,  and  if  so  whether  these  were 
vital  to  his  spiritual  mission  or  not.  It  is  certainly 
not  of  great  importance  that  two  of  his  biographers 
naively  call  attention  to  a  disappointed  expectation 
on  his  part  with  reference  to  finding  fruit  on  a  fig- 
tree  when  he  was  hungry.  It  is  of  greater  moment 
whether  or  no  we  should  assume  that  without  having 
pursued  critical  Old  Testament  studies  he  should  be 
certain  of  the  Davidic  authorship  of  a  Psalm  that 
modern  students  of  Hebrew  literature  assign  to  the 
Maccabean  age ;  whether  his  quoting  of  two  central 
incidents  from  the  Book  of  Jonah  establishes  the 
historical  character  of  that  writing;  and  whether 
his  prophecy  of  his  second  coming  discredits  his 
prevision  as  to  the  kingdom  of  God.-'    If  he  "advanced 


'  Matt.  xvi.  4,  28  ;  xxi.  19,  20  ;  xxii,  42-45  ;  Mark  xi.  20,  21  ; 
xii,  35-37  ;  Luke  xi.  29,  30  ;  xx.  41-44.  "We  concede  that  Jesus 
cherished  and  kindled  in  his  followers  a  hope  in  reference  to  his 
second  coming  that  was  not  fulfilled — a  hope  that  in  just  the  time 
when  the  New  Testament  writings  arose  called  forth  and  nourished 
ascetic  feelings,  and  lent  to  his  picture  of  the  future  the  most 
glowing  earthly  colours.  But  the  fact  proves  only  that  Jesus 
was  subject  to  the  limitations  of  human  knowledge  and  certain 
ideas  of  his  time,  but  proves  nothing  against  the  greatness  of  his 
ethical  character.  .  .  .  May  not  one  detect  in  the  forms  conditioned 
by  the  history  of  his  age  the  splendid  powers  of  a  soul  flaming 
with  divine  inspiration?" — Bonhoff,  Christenthum  und  siUlich- 
soziale  Lcbensfragen,  1900,  p.  13  f. 

13 


194  RICH  AND  POOR 

in  wisdom  "  ;  if  he  did  not  know  the  precise  time  of 
his  coming  in  glory,  which  was  not  known  to  the 
"angels,"  but  to  God  alone;  if  he  accepted  the 
demonology  of  his  time, — then  he  appears  to  have 
been  subject  to  certain  limitations,  and  it  is  only  by 
a  study  of  his  teaching  that  it  can  be  determined 
where  and  to  what  extent  they  are  to  be  assigned  an 
influence.  An  a  priori  judgment  is  not  admissible.^ 
While  it  would  be  hazardous  to  affirm  that 
teachers  like  Jesus  and  Paul  must  be  assumed  to 
have  been  bound  by  the  limitations  of  their  age  so 
as  to  be  unable  to  transcend  it  in  spiritual  insight 
and  bring  into  it  inspirations  and  motives  that  were 
hitherto  unknown,  it  would  be  equally  hazardous  to 
maintain  that  even  such  pre-eminent  teachers  could 
remain  unaffected  by  their  intellectual  milieu  and 
environment,  the  spiritual  atmosphere  into  which 
they  were  born,  the  literature  by  which  they  were 
nourished,  the  science,  the  geography,  the  view  of 
nature  and  the  world  in  which  they  were  educated, 
the  social  conditions  and  ideals  that  moulded  their 
character,  the  theological  and  religious  ideas  and 
hopes  with  which  they  were  imbued  from  cliildhood 

1  Luke  ii.  52  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  36  ;  Luke  x.  18  ;  xi.  20,  24  ;  xiii. 
32.  See  SchwartzkoplT,  Konnte  Jesus  irren?  1896;  Die  Wcissa- 
gungen  Jesu  Ohristi  vom  seinejn  Tod,  seiner  Avferstehung  und 
WicderhunfL  und  ihre  ErfiiUung,  1895. 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    195 

— in  a  word,  by  all  that  gave  their  age  its  quality, 
its  distinction,  and  its  limitations. 

In  fact,  an  examination  of  the  New  Testament 
books  shows  that  the  spiritual  prophets,  teachers, 
and  writers  of  primitive  Christianity  could  not  but 
employ  for  the  form  of  their  teaching  the  mould 
supplied  by  their  age.  Its  language  and  to  a  con- 
siderable degree  its  terminology  they  were  obliged 
to  adopt.  Otherwise  they  could  not  have  delivered 
a  message  intelligible  to  the  people  they  addressed. 
They  could  not,  for  example,  deal  with  supposed 
demoniacal  possession,  either  in  the  matter  of  so-called 
exorcism  or  in  writing  accounts  of  the  phenomena 
that  it  presented,  except  upon  the  plane  of  the 
common  popular  belief.  In  employing  the  sacred 
Scriptures  of  the  Jews  for  didactic  purposes  they 
were  under  the  necessity  of  assuming  the  inerrancy 
of  these  writings  in  accordance  with  the  prevalent 
opinion  of  their  Jewish  contemporaries.  When  they 
quoted  these  Scriptures  in  proof  of  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  they  could  employ  no  other  method  of 
interpretation  than  the  one  in  vogue  in  their  time, 
however  imperfect  this  might  be. 

"While  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  charging 
Jesus  and  the  New  Testament  writers  with  an 
adaptation  to  their  hearers  and  readers  in  the  sense 


196  RICH  AND  POOR 

that  they  put  into  their  words  a  meaning  unknown 
to  those  whom  they  addressed, — a  procedure  that 
could  be  nothing  short  of  a  covert  deception, — we 
must  regard  it  as  fortunate  for  the  accompHshment 
of  their  work  that  they  employed  the  language  and 
terminology  of  their  time  in  all  that  pertained  to 
the  form  of  their  teaching.  Without  the  terms 
"  Messiah  "  and  "  kingdom  of  God  " — Jewish  designa- 
tions of  a  very  definite  import — we  cannot  conceive 
of  the  message  of  Jesus  as  so  influencing  the  thought 
and  imagination  of  men  as  to  have  produced  the 
Christian  Church.  The  slight  change  in  the  old 
content,  plainly  indicated  as  it  was,  did  not  deprive 
them  of  their  essential  antique  force  and  significance. 
In  no  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
is  the  application  of  the  discrimination  of  transient 
and  permanent  more  important  than  in  that  which 
has  reference  to  the  social  relations.  Here  the 
perspective  of  the  writers  and  teachers  must  be  taken 
into  account,  the  impending  end  of  the  age,  the  early 
dissolution  of  the  existing  social  order,  and  the 
advent  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  must  be  con- 
sidered whether,  in  view  of  such  a  futurity  as  pre- 
sented itself  to  them,  they  could  regard  the  relations 
and  duties  of  men  as  they  would  have  regarded  them 
with  a  different   perspective.       Could    they    have 


THE  TKANSIENT  AND  PEKMANENT   197 

spoken  to  men  whom  they  thought  to  be  standing  at 
the  end  of  one  great  world-period  and  the  beginning 
of  another  as  they  would  have  addressed  the  men  of 
a  hundred  generations  in  the  future,  had  such  a 
period  of  human  evolution  and  complex  social  life 
come  within  their  vision  ? 

It  may  be  hazardous  to  attempt  to  determine 
what  the  great  Teacher  would  do  if  he  were  in 
Chicago  or  in  the  editorial  chair  of  a  modern  news- 
paper, but  one  risks  little  in  saying  that  his  words 
about  non-resistance  would  be  greatly  modified  if 
addressed  to  such  a  social  order  as  ours,  to  the  very 
existence  of  which  resistance  to  the  evil-doer  is 
essential.  The  defence  of  one's  insulted  honour  may 
not  require  a  blow  for  a  blow,  but  it  is  evident  that 
tame  submission  to  an  outrage,  the  turning  of  the 
other  cheek,  would  be  the  greatest  disservice  to 
society  and  to  the  evil-doer  himself.  Unresisted  rascal- 
ity will  multiply  itself  a  hundred-fold,  and  destroy 
the  social  order  that  submits  to  its  depredations.  We 
cannot  with  impunity  give  our  cloak  to  the  man  who 
by  the  forms  of  law  takes  away  our  coat.  We  must 
not  put  the  law  itself  into  the  hands  of  lawlessness.^ 

^  Matt.  V.  38,  40.  Tlie  injunctions  about  non-resistance  woro 
not  addressed  exclusively  to  the  apostles  as  a  guide  to  them  in 
their  mission,  but  to  the  "multitude  of  Jesus'  disciples,"  according 
to  Luke  vi.  17,  and  to  the  "multitudes  "  according  to  Matt.  vii.  28. 


198  RICH  AND  POOR 

When  to  "  inherit  eternal  life "  meant  to  have  a 
part  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  expected 
soon  to  come,  the  question  as  to  what  a  man  should 
do  in  order  to  secure  that  great  inheritance  might 
well  be  answered  :  "  Sell  that  thou  hast,  and  give  to 
the  poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven."  ^ 
It  may,  however,  be  questioned  whether  the  same 
Teacher,  standing  in  the  social  order  of  the  twentieth 
century  and  looking  with  his  keen  insight  upon  the 
unfolding  of  its  vast  and  complicated  drama,  would 
give  the  same  answer  to  the  same  question — whether, 
knowing  all  the  beneficent  utilities  of  wealth  in  the 
promotion  of  human  welfare,  he  might  not  see  a 
better  use  for  it  than  to  give  it  to  the  poor. 

Would  the  same  Teacher  now  have  no  more  to 
say  without  discrimination  to  men  of  great  wealth 
than  :  "  Woe  to  you  that  are  rich  !  for  ye  have  received 
your  consolation  "  ? "  One  might,  indeed,  with  all 
reverence  ask  whether  he  would  say  this  to  them  at 
all.  Doubtless  the  eager,  all-absorbing  pursuit  of 
riches  for  no  other  purpose  than  selfish  gratification, 
with  a  passion  that  knows  no  scruples  and  a  heart 
that  is  dead  to  charity,  is  a  grievous  sin  against 
humanity,  and  deserves  a  three-fold  woe.  But  what 
they  most  need  who  bow  the  knee  to  Mammon,  and 

1  Matt.  xix.  21.  2  Lute  ^i  24. 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    199 

sacrifice  on  his  polluted  altar  their  strength,  manhood, 
honour,  and  spiritual  susceptibility,  is  not  so  much 
condemnation  as  direction  and  inspiration  toward  the 
divine  uses  to  which  they  might  consecrate  their 
powers  and  their  accumulations.  There  are,  more- 
over, many  rich  men  whose  capital,  wisely  employed, 
is  a  beneficent  social  force,  or  whose  wealth  is 
bountifully  bestowed  upon  great  charities — men  who 
are  finding  their  "  consolation  "  in  seeing  the  vast 
utilities  that  their  riches  are  producing  and  in 
devising  others  that  shall  be  more  beneficent. 

It  may  be  questioned,  moreover,  whether,  knowing 
the  rich  men  of  our  day,  and  seeing  what  great  and 
fruitful  charities  they  have  endowed,  and  what 
helpful  utilities  their  wealth  promotes  in  commerce, 
in  education,  in  the  Church,  in  the  feeding  and 
clothing  and  sheltering  of  the  multitudes  dependent 
upon  it,  Jesus  would  have  no  more  to  say  to  them 
than  to  recount  the  fearful  doom  of  the  rich  man  of 
the  parable,  or  tell  the  story  of  the  other  man  of 
great  possessions,  whose  soul  was  to  be  required  of 
him  the  very  day  when  he  was  planning  to  enlarge 
his  storehouses,  and  whom  we  may  assume  no 
better  fortune  awaited  than  torment  in  the  flames.^ 

An  undiscriminating  blessing  upon  the  "poor" 

•  Luke  xii.  16-21  ;  xvi.  19-26. 


200  RICH  AND  POOR 

could  hardly  be  pronounced  in  this  age  when  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  inheritance  of  which  was 
promised  to  them,  is  regarded,  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  was  apprehended  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  as  an 
unreality,  a  dream,  an  illusion.  No  doubt,  moreover, 
poverty  has  its  temptations  and  perils  no  less  than 
riches.  The  state  of  mind  induced  by  poverty,  the 
gnawing  care,  the  depression,  the  pessimistic  view  of 
life,  the  distrust  of  the  order  of  the  world,  the  keen 
sense  of  the  injustice  and  oppression  suffered  from 
men  and  from  a  share  in  which  heaven  is  not 
excluded,  the  revolt  under  the  burdens  to  be  borne, 
the  unrest  in  view  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  the 
future,  the  absorbing  anxiety  for  the  fate  of  loved 
ones,  the  wolf  at  the  door, — all  this  sad  inheritance 
of  penury  is  quite  as  unfavourable  to  the  spiritual 
life  as  is  the  "  deceitfulness  of  riches."  The  qualifica- 
tions of  Lazarus  for  paradise  are  not  apparent. 

The  injunction  to  take  no  anxious  thought  for  the 
morrow,  for  food  and  clothing,  because  the  heavenly 
Father  feeds  the  fowls  and  clothes  the  lilies,  and 
that  of  the  writer  of  Hebrews,  "Be  content  with 
such  things  as  ye  have  :  for  himself  hath  said,  I  will 
in  no  wise  fail  thee,  neither  will  I  forsake  thee,"  ^ 
must  be  regarded  as  transient  because  incomplete 

»  Matt.  vi.  25,  26  ;  Heb.  xiii.  5. 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT   201 

and  not  founded  upon  the  actual  relation  of  man's 
future  fortune  to  bis  present  activity  and  achieve- 
ment. Such  teaching  might  do  for  men  who  were 
looking  for  the  immediate  advent  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  but  it  is  not  adapted  to  an  order  of  life  that  is 
controlled  by  a  clear  understanding  of  the  relation  of 
cause  and  effect,  and  that  is  based  upon  the  con- 
viction of  the  unvarying  course  of  nature. 

Of  a  similar  character  is  the  censure  in  the 
Epistle  of  James,  directed  against  those  who  purpose 
to  go  into  the  city  and  "  trade  "  and  "  get  gain,"  as 
well  as  the  writer's  undiscriminating  condemnation 
of  the  rich,  who  should  "  weep  and  howl  for  the 
miseries  that  are  coming  upon  them."  ^  Such  words 
have  an  appearance  of  congruity  only  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  impending  end  of  the  world, 
like  those  of  Paul,  to  whom  the  time  was  "  shortened," 
so  that "  henceforth  those  that  have  wives  may  be  as 
though  they  had  none;  and  those  that  weep,  as 
though  they  wept  not ;  and  those  that  rejoice,  as 
though  they  rejoiced  not ;  and  those  that  buy,  as 
though  they  possessed  not ;  and  those  that  use 
the  world,  as  not  abusing  it :  for  the  fashion  of 
this  world  passeth  away."  ^  In  view  of  the 
hastening  doom  of  the  old  world,  there  could   be 

»  Jas.  iv.  13,  14  ;  v.  1-6.  '-'  1  Cor.  vii.  28,  29. 


202  EICH  AND  POOE 

only  folly  iu  engaging  in  trade,  in  marrying,  and  in 
accumulating  riches.  In  the  brief  period  before  the 
great  catastrophe  there  was  no  time  to  attain  the 
legitimate  end  of  marriage.  Besides,  he  that  was 
married  could  not  duly  "  care  for  the  things  of  the 
Lord."  As  to  wealth,  it  occupied  with  worldly 
interests,  with  "the  cares  of  this  age,"  the  mind 
that  ought  to  be  filled  with  thoughts  of  "  the  last 
things,"  and  it  must,  moreover,  be  destroyed  when  in 
the  impending  judgment  "  the  fashion  of  this  age  " 
should  perish. 

On  the  other  hand,  principles  of  permanent 
validity  and  worth  appear  in  the  condemnation  of 
"  avarice  "  and  in  the  warnings  against  the  "  tempta- 
tions," the  "snares,"  and  the  "foolish  and  hurtful 
lusts  "  to  which  they  are  exposed  who  "  desire  to  be 
rich,"  although  there  is  a  manifest  exaggeration  in 
the  declaration  that  "  the  love  of  money  is  a  root  of 
all  kinds  of  evil."  ^  Of  worth  for  all  times,  too,  for 
such  as  need  the  like  admonitions,  are  the  words  of 
the  writer  just  quoted  to  the  effect  that  the  rich 
should  not  be  highminded,  nor  have  their  hope  set 
on  the  uncertainty  of  riches,  but  on  God,  who 
giveth  us  all  things  richly  to  enjoy,  but  that  they 
should    be   ready    to   distribute   and    abounding   in 

1  Eph.  V.  3,  n  ;  1  Tim.  vi.  6,  9. 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    203 

sympathy.  Here  is  an  admirable  combination  of  the 
ethical  and  the  religious,  which  also  appears  in  the 
passage  quoted  from  the  first  Epistle  of  John  in  the 
next  preceding  chapter,  to  the  effect  that  the  man  of 
wealth  who,  seeing  his  brother  in  need,  shuts  up 
his  compassion  from  him,  is  without  the  love  of  God 
in  his  heart. 

In  Jesus'  direction  to  the  rich  young  man  to  sell 
his  goods  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  in  the  com- 
mentary upon  it  addressed  to  his  disciples,  to  the 
effect  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  a 
needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,^  there  is  conveyed  a  truth  of 
permanent  value  and  importance,  if  we  assume  the 
qualification  that  a  particular  kind  of  rich  man  was 
intended.  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  qualification  in 
the  passage,  and  all  rich  men  appear  to  be  included 
and  to  be  declared  incapable  of  salvation  without  a 
special  divine  intervention.  It  would,  however, 
hardly  be  unjust  to  the  thought  of  Jesus  to  suppose 
that  he  had  in  mind  the  rich  as  he  perhaps  knew 
them,  such  men  as  are  condemned  in  the  Epistle  of 
James  for  defrauding  their  labourers,  men  entirely 
selfish  and  unscrupulous  in  their  dealings  and 
altogether  absorbed  in  the  pursuit  of  gain,  and  that 

'  Mark  x.  21-28. 


204  RICH  AND  POOR 

he  would  not  apply  such  words  to  the  honest  and 
benevolent  men  of  wealth  of  whom  we  happily 
know  many  in  our  times.  The  truth  here  taught 
and  applicable  to  all  ages  is  that  a  man  may  be 
so  pre-occupied  with  riches  and  worldly  affairs,  so 
engrossed  in  the  pursuit  of  gain,  and  so  fascinated 
with  the  pleasures  that  a  great  fortune  places 
within  his  reach  as  almost  to  lose  the  capacity 
for  the  spiritual  life,  or  in  the  terminology  of  the 
first  Christian  century,  for  the  concerns  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

A  similar  teaching  is  contained  in  the  parable  of 
the  rich  grain-grower,  in  whose  case  it  is  evidently 
implied  that  his  wealth  was  a  peril  and  a  hindrance 
to  the  spiritual  life  because  of  his  entire  preoccupa- 
tion with  the  interests  and  cares  pertaining  to  worldly 
possessions.  Moreover,  he  is  not  only  intent  on 
enlarging  his  storehouses,  but  also  his  mind  is 
occupied  only  with  thoughts  of  the  pleasures  and 
selfish  enjoyments  that  his  abundance  will  afford 
him.  He  says  to  himself  that  he  will  henceforth 
take  his  ease,  and  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry,  since  he 
has  "  much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years."  He  is 
accordingly  called  a  "  fool,"  for  it  is  not  wisdom 
but  superlative  folly  to  put  one's  trust  in  worldly 
possessions,   as   if    they   could    preserve   one's   life. 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    205 

instead  of  tliinkiug  of  God  and  preparing  for  the 
life  to  come.  The  lesson  of  the  parable  is  evidently, 
then,  a  warning  against  an  engrossing  occupation  of 
the  mind  with  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  since  a 
man  thereby  becomes  corrupted  with  worldliness, 
enervated  by  the  indulgence  of  his  appetites,  and 
degraded  by  merrymaking  sensuality.  He  becomes 
indifferent  to  the  goods  of  the  spirit  and  is  not  "  rich 
toward  God." 

The  peril  of  absorbing  occupation  with  the  ac- 
cumulation of  earthly  possessions  is  indicated  in 
the  injunction  not  to  lay  up  treasures  upon  the  earth, 
where  they  are  exposed  to  moth  and  rust  and  to  the 
depredations  of  thieves,  but  in  heaven,  where  they 
are  in  perpetual  security.  The  danger  lies  in  the 
engrossment  of  the  "  heart "  in  worldly  interests  to 
the  neglect  of  the  imperishable  goods  of  the  eternal 
life,  for  where  the  treasure  is,  there  will  the  heart 
be  also.^  Only  so  far  as  one  occupies  one's  thoughts 
and  affections  with  the  interests  of  the  higher  life 
does  one  lay  up  treasures  the  fruition  of  which  is 
reserved  for  the  future.  In  this  matter  the  heart 
cannot  be  divided.  There  is  no  two-fold  service. 
The  worship  of  Mammon  is  incompatible  with  the 
requisite  allegiance  to  God.^ 

»  Matt.  vi.  19-21.  2  j^i^tt.  vi.  24. 


206  RICH  AND  POOR 

The  truth  and  permanent  worth  of  this  teaching 
needs  no  other  exemplification  than  it  has  had  in 
all  ages  of  the  world.  He  alone  can  pursue  an 
activity  in  the  realm  of  Mammon  that  is  compatible 
with  a  due  submission  to  the  will  of  God  who  con- 
secrates his  wealth  to  the  service  of  God  through 
the  service  of  man. 

On  the  whole,  then,  the  attitude  of  Jesus  and 
the  other  New  Testament  teachers  toward  wealth 
was  unfriendly,  because  with  their  spiritual  insight 
they  saw  its  perils  for  the  life  of  the  spirit.  Their 
message  to  their  own  age  appears  to  have  been  some- 
times harsh  and  one-sided.  What  they  would  say 
to  this  age  we  must  infer  from  their  spirit  as 
it  is  manifested  in  those  teachings  of  theirs  that 
are  of  universal  application.  Their  teaching 
regarding  the  social  question  that  is  of  eternal 
truth  and  validity,  their  message  to  all  the  ages, 
is  that  as  the  children  of  God  all  men  are  alike 
before  Him,  and  that  all  who  would  be  His 
spiritual  sons  must  show  toward  their  brethren 
lovingkindness,  helpfulness,  sympathy,  and  com- 
passion. In  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament 
there  are  recognised  no  distinctions  of  rank, 
wealth,  or  station.  This  is  the  revolutionary 
principle  that  it  brought  into  a  society  in  which  the 


THE  TRANSIENT  AND  PERMANENT    207 

poor  and  lowly  were  only  instruments  of  the  rich 
and  great.^ 

The  primitive-Christian  ideal  appears  in  the 
association  together,  in  the  earliest  communities  of 
the  faith,  of  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor,  in  the  "  all 
things  common"  of  the  Jerusalem  Church,  and  in 
Paul's  rebuke  of  the  wealthy  regarding  the  abuse  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  To  the  great  apostle  the  slave 
was  Christ's  freeman,  and  in  Jesus  there  was  no 
Greek  or  Jew,  bond  or  free,  but  all  were  one  "in 
Christ."  Well  might  "  the  brother  of  low  degree 
glory  in  his  high  estate,"  for  as  a  brother  in  Christ 
he  was  inferior  to  none.  Thus  Christianity  was 
originally,  and  is  essentially  "good  news  for  the 
poor."  It  introduced  into  the  world  an  interest  in 
and  a  solicitude  for  the  unfortunate  that  was  before 
unknown,  and  so  far  as  its  primal  spirit  and  purpose 

1  "  By  means  of  the  conception  of  man's  sonship  to  God  did 
Jesus  in  the  most  powerful  manner  awaken  in  mankind  the 
consciousness  of  brotherliness,  the  mutual  responsibility  of  all  for 
one  another,  and  the  feeling  of  solidarity.  At  the  same  time  he 
declared  that  love  in  the  form  of  serving  and  suffering  is  the 
highest  and  the  only  power,  the  power  that  abides  for  ever.  The 
Son  of  Man,  he  declares,  is  not  come  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister.  Therefore,  he  who  will  be  greatest,  let  him  be  a  servant 
of  all.  The  requirement  of  this  serving  love,  this  self-denial  and 
renunciation  of  the  world  without  fleeing  from  it,  combined  with 
full  devotion  to  the  world,  is  in  truth  a  new  commandment,  and 
more  than  this  a  new  world-conquering  power  that  proceeds  from 
Jesus." — Kambli,  Das  Eigcnthum,  etc.,  p.  63. 


208  RICH  AND  POOR 

have  been  realised — too  incompletely,  alas  !  there  has 
been  a  marked  improvement  of  their  condition.  This 
gospel  for  the  poor  proves  itself  good  tidings  also  for 
the  rich,  so  far  as  under  its  influence  the  hearts  of 
the  latter  are  softened  toward  their  less  fortunate 
brethren,  and  vast  material  resources  are  made  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  all.  The  great  New  Testament 
doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God,  which  has  as 
a  corollary  the  dignity  of  man  as  man,  will  accomplish 
its  mission  as  the  gospel  of  Jesus,  the  gospel  of 
humanity  and  love,  goes  on  its  conquering  course,  by 
turning  the  hearts  of  men  more  and  more  toward 
one  another  and  making  universal  the  fellowship  of 
Jesus,  in  which,  according  to  the  primitive-Christian 
ideal,  there  shall  practically  disappear  the  distinctions 
of  high  and  low,  rich  and  poor. 


•  CHAPTEE  X 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  AND   THE   SOCIAL   QUESTION 
OF   TO-DAY 

The  consideration  of  the  relation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  the  solution  of  the  social  problem  presented 
by  riches  and  poverty  that  confronts  us  to-day  does 
not  belong  to  the  scientific  treatment  of  the  theme 
of  this  monograph,  but  the  subject  is  so  closely 
related  to  the  matters  that  have  had  attention  in  the 
foregoing  chapters,  and  is,  moreover,  of  so  great 
practical  interest  that  a  discussion  of  it  seems  to 
be  a  fitting  conclusion  to  the  book.  All  who  believe 
that  the  New  Testament  is  an  authority  for  the  faith 
and  practice  of  Christians  in  their  social  as  well 
as  in  their  private  relations  will  certainly  think 
that  such  an  addition  to  the  treatise  proper  is 
not  only  quite  congruous  but  also  necessary  to 
a  complete  discussion  of  the  subject  in  its  wider 
relations, 

U 


210  RICH  AND  POOE 

On  whatever  a  i^riori  grounds  we  may  believe  in 
the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  practical 
demonstration  of  it  in  the  experience  that  in  the 
matter  of  religious  faith  it  furnishes  principles  adapted 
to  promote  the  highest  perfection  of  the  spiritual 
nature,  and  in  the  matter  of  life  such  impulses  and 
ideals  as  tend  to  the  best  possible  individual  and 
social  achievement.  Our  experience  thus  reproduces 
that  of  the  great  teachers  of  the  New  Testament,  so 
far  as  their  objects  of  faith  and  their  ideals  and  im- 
pulses become  our  own.  We  see  that  they  became 
what  they  were,  and  taught  as  they  did,  because 
they  had  a  true  insight  into  the  laws  of  the  spirit 
and  the  principles  of  the  social  order.  It  is 
characteristic,  then,  of  the  modern  estimate  and 
use  of  the  New  Testament  that  men  are  search- 
ing its  pages  rather  for  ideals  and  inspirations 
than  for  systems  of  belief  and  outlines  of 
social  polities.  Thus  it  is  becoming  in  the  hands 
of  teachers  and  learners  more  a  Book  of  Life 
and  less  an  arsenal  of  the  weapons  of  dogmatic 
warfare. 

Under  this  limitation  must  the  New  Testament 
be  regarded  and  treated  as  an  authority  in  the  social 
question  of  to-day,  so  far  as  it  is  at  all  appealed  to 
in  this  relation.     To  Jesus  and  Paul  and  the  writer 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   211 

of  the  Epistle  of  James  ^  the  social  question  did  not 
present  itself,  in  the  complexity  in  which  it  con- 
fronts us  in  this  age,  as  a  problem  that  they  felt 
called  upon  to  solve.  They  looked  upon  the  rich, 
selfish,  grasping,  and  hard-hearted,  and  upon  the 
poor,  labouring,  weary,  and  heavy-laden,  primarily 
with  reference  to  their  susceptibility  to  repentance 
and  their  capacity  for  the  righteousness  required  for 
the  impending  kingdom  of  God.  In  view  of  the 
catastrophe  of  an  age  that  was  hastening  to  its  end 
and  in  the  dazzling  splendour  of  the  new  era  of  the 
divine  rule,  the  light  of  which  to  the  intense  pro- 
phetic vision  was  already  on  the  horizon,  there  could 
hardly  be  a  clear  perspective  of  a  social  order 
struggling  from  generation  to  generation  with  the 
solution  of  its  mighty  problems. 

With  reference  to  the  great  Teacher  in  this 
relation  I  will  quote  the  words  of  a  scholar  well 
known  to  students  of  current  German  theology  for 
his  caution  and  candour:  "How  different  are  the 
general  relations  with  which  we  have  to  deal  from 
those  to  which  Jesus  referred  his  message  I  do  not 
need  to  point  out  in  detail.  Jesus  reckoned  on  an 
impending  end  of  the  existing  course  of  the  world, 

'  See  the  wiitei's  article,   "James,  Epistle  of,"  in  the  Eiicydo- 
pcedia  Bibiica,  ii. 


212  RICH  AND  POOR 

therefore  he  did  not  take  into  consideration  the  task 
of  a  dutiful  care  for  the  remote  future  and  also  the 
task  of  a  gradual  reform  of  human  relations — tasks 
that  press  themselves  upon  the  moral  consciousness 
•when  that  presupposition  is  absent."  ^ 

If,  accordingly,  one  will  seek  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment an  authority  for  the  social  life  of  men  in  this 
age,  for  the  construction  of  a  new  or  for  the  reform 
of  the  existing  social  order,  one  must  first  have  a 
clear  idea  as  to  the  kind  of  authority  that  is  sought. 
The  kind  of  authority  that  is  to  be  looked  for  is  of 
course  precisely  and  only  the  kind  of  authority  that 
is  there  to  be  found  by  a  right  interpretation  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  indispensable  first  step  for 
the  inquirer  who  seeks  such  instruction  is  that  he 
put  himself  in  the  place  of  the  teachers  to  whom  he 
would  appeal,  and  endeavour  to  understand  the 
environment,  the  dominant  ideas,  and  the  purposes 
that  determined  or  at  least  influenced  their  social 
teachings.  He  must  decide  whether  they  are  to  be 
judged  and  interpreted  primarily  as  social  philo- 
sophers or  as  preachers  of  righteousness,  as  scientific 
political  economists  or  as  heralds  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  ;  whether  their  environment  simply  appealed  to 

^  Wendt,  "Das  Eigentlmm  iiach  christlicher  Beuitheilmig,"  in 
Zeitschrift  ftir  Theologie  und  Kirche,  1898,  2te8  Hei't,  p.  114, 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   213 

their  sympathies,  or  suggested  a  radical  reconstruction 
of  the  social  order  ;  and  whether  they  purposed  such 
a  reconstruction,  or  merely  endeavoured  to  inspire 
men  to  live  in  the  existing  society  more  in  the  spirit 
of  kindness,  charity,  and  fraternity. 

Such  an  inquirer,  if  he  would  make  his  search 
fruitful,  would  be  led  to  ask  himself  whether  he  is 
to  regard  most  of  the  teachings  relating  to  earthly 
possessions,  to  riches  and  poverty,  and  to  the  relations 
of  rich  and  poor,  as  sayings  of  the  occasion,  adapted 
to  existing  relations  and  necessities,  or  as  the  ex- 
pression of  principles  having  perpetual  validity  and 
applicable  to  human  society  in  all  ages  and  regions. 
He  would  have  to  determine  whether  such  directions 
as  "  Be  content  with  your  wages "  ;  "  He  that  hath 
two  coats,  let  him  impart  to  him  that  hath  none  "  ; 
"  Sell  all  that  thou  hast,  and  distribute  unto  the 
poor " ;  "  Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms,"  and 
others  of  like  import,  are  to  be  regarded  as  binding 
everywhere  and  upon  all — whether,  in  a  word,  they 
are  at  all  to  be  taken  as  principles  that  can  be  made 
controlling  in  human  society.^  He  would  raise  the 
question  whether  the  mode  of  life  adopted  by  Jesus 
and  required  of  his  disciples  in  their  ministry  is  to 
be   regarded  as  binding  upon  his  followers  in  the 

1  Luke  iii.  11,  14  ;  xii.  33  ;  xviii.  22. 


214  EICH  AND  POOK 

ministry  in  all  times  and  places, — that  they  who  go 
forth  "  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God  "  are  to  "  take 
nothing  "  for  their  journey,  "  neither  staff  nor  wallet, 
nor  bread  nor  money,  neither  have  two  coats,"  ^ — and 
whether  the  social  relations  of  all  Christians  should 
be  governed  by  the  direction  not  to  invite  to  their 
houses  at  a  feast  their  friends,  kinsmen,  and  rich 
neighbours,  but  the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  and 
the  blind.^ 

The  consideration  of  these  passages  and  others  of 
a  similar  character  leads  the  student  to  seek  for  a 
method  of  interpretation  that  shall  be  just  to  their 
original  intention.  If  a  principle  of  exegesis  can  be 
adopted  that  will  assign  them  to  their  true  relation 
in  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  it  should  serve  to 
show  in  what  sense  the  New  Testament  may  be  taken 
as  a  guide  in  the  social  affairs  of  men.  It  is  un- 
warrantable to  have  recourse  to  "figurative  language," 
"  hyperbole,"  or  "  Oriental  style,"  since  the  passages 
contain  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  only  legitimate 
exegesis  of  the  passages  is  one  that  assigns  to  them 
their  obvious  literal  meaning.  Nothing  else  could 
have  been  intended.  In  no  other  sense  could  they 
have  been  understood  by  the  original  hearers  or 
readers.     But  we  have  not  done  with  them  when  we 

'  Luke  ix.  3.  '■'  Luke  xiv.  12  f. 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY    215 

have  reached  this  conclusion.  The  one  important 
matter  remains  to  be  considered — how  are  they  related 
to  us  ?  Do  they  "  find  "  us  at  all,  and  if  so,  how  ? 
Obviously  it  is  impracticable  for  us  to  carry  out  these 
directions  in  their  actual  import.  Equally  obvious 
is  it  that  they  do  not  express  principles  of  a  per- 
manent and  universal  social  order.  The  question, 
then,  that  the  inquirer  is  constrained  to  ask  is, 
whether  they  are  therefore  to  be  disregarded  as 
wholly  worthless  for  us. 

The  matter  of  paramount  importance  is  that  such 
of  these  injunctions  as  concern  riches  and  poverty 
express  an  attitude  toward  these  two  conditions  in 
society.  They  denote  a  sympathy  and  a  want  of 
sympathy  with  the  poor  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
rich  on  the  other.  More  than  this,  there  is  an  un- 
mistakable implication  of  a  duty  of  the  rich  toward 
the  poor  that  includes  interest,  kindness,  and  help- 
fulness. This  is  in  general  terms  the  underlying 
truth  in  these  passages  and  others  of  kindred  import. 
This  is  the  spirit  of  the  texts,  and  it  is  life-giving 
everywhere  and  always.  With  the  letter,  the  ministry 
of  which  is  death,  we  may  well  have  nothing  to  do. 
If,  then,  these  precepts  cannot,  in  the  present  social 
conditions,  be  carried  out  according  to  a  strict  inter- 
pretation, it  happens  with  this  part  of  the  gospel  of 


216  RICH  AND  POOR 

Jesus  as  with  all  the  rest  of  it,  that  though  its 
outward  form  may  perish,  its  inward,  essential  truth 
remains,  and  that  in  every  age  it  is  fruitful  only  as 
it  is  adapted  to  the  changing  needs  of  the  times. 
If  in  the  circle  of  the  ages  some  things  fail  of 
application  and  fall  away,  those  things  that  remain 
are  found  to  he  no  less  effective  and  potent  on  that 
account. 

If  the  foregoing  considerations  furnish  the  right 
key  to  the  interpretation  of  the  somewhat  "rough 
requirements  of  renunciation  "  made  by  Jesus  of  the 
rich  men  of  his  time,  of  the  exaltation  of  poverty, 
and  of  the  favourable  disposition  toward  the  poor, 
they  may  serve  as  a  means  of  correcting  many  gross 
perversions  of  his  teachings  that  show  themselves  to 
be  erroneous  because  they  run  counter  to  the  entire 
spirit  and  intention  of  his  gospel.  Such  words  as, 
"  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  upon  the  earth  "  ; 
"  If  any  man  cometh  unto  me,  and  hateth  not  his 
own  father  and  mother  and  wife  and  brethren  and 
sisters,  yea  and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my 
disciple " ;  and,  "  So  therefore  whosoever  he  be  of 
you  that  renounceth  not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot 
be  my  disciple,"  ^  have  been  appealed  to  as  sanction- 
ing the  ascetic  principle  and  enjoining  asceticism  as 

1  Matt.  vi.  19  ;  Luke  xiv.  26,  33. 


1 


I 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY    217 

a  mode  of  life.  In  supposed  compliance  with  them 
men  have  thought  themselves  commanded  to  with- 
draw their  interest  and  activity  from  the  world,  to 
renounce  the  natural  duties  to  their  kindred,  and  to 
spend  their  lives  in  ascetic  self-mortification  and 
degrading  poverty. 

Yet  Jesus  was  manifestly  no  ascetic,  and  did  not 
require  of  his  disciples  an  ascetic  mode  of  life.^  His 
gospel  commands,  moreover,  that  men  love  their  ^ 
neighbours  instead  of  isolating  themselves  from  them  / 
in  monkish  seclusion  and  indifference,  and  thus  pre- 
supposes a  life  of  helpful  activity  in  their  midst. 
Such  sayings  as  those  quoted  above  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  inflexible  directions  for  the  conduct  of 
life  or  as  principles  of  the  social  order  in  general. 
They  can  be  brought  into  relation  with  the  social 
question  in  every  age  only  as  they  are  adapted 
according  to  a  right  sense  of  their  spirit  to  the 
existing  situation  and  needs.  If  some  of  them  do 
not  admit  of  application  and  use,  these  may  be  dis- 
regarded as  belonging  to  the  transient  elements  of 
Jesus'  teaching,  the  temporary  character  of  which  by 
no  means  impairs  the  value  of  those  that  are  per- 
manent and  universal.  One  might  doubtless  find 
better  uses  of  wealth  than   bestowing  it  in  alms. 

1  Matt.  xi.  19  ;  Mark  ii.  18  f. 


218  EICH  AND  POOR 

One  could  certainly  render  it  more  helpful  to  the 
poor  than  by  making  them  pensioners  upon  one's 
bounty  to  the  loss  of  their  self-respect.  Moreover, 
riches  can  be  accumulated  and  employed  to  such 
beneficent  ends  that  their  possessor  by  his  wise  and 
helpful  use  of  them  lays  up  treasures  in  heaven. 
Who  will  say  that  the  man  who  in  such  ways  fulfils 
the  spirit  of  these  requirements,  which  is  sympathy 
with  the  poor  and  opposition  to  selfishness  and  greed, 
is  not  as  truly  a  follower  of  Jesus  as  if  he  were  to 
attempt  to  observe  them  according  to  the  letter  of 
the  texts  ? 

Another  sort  of  perversion  of  the  social  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  arises  from  a  narrow 
literalism,  is  that  which  finds  in  it  the  "  programme  " 
of  anarchy  or  that  of  organised  socialism.  Eenan, 
for  example,  thought  Jesus  to  have  been  "  in  one 
view"  an  anarchist  without  an  idea  of  civil  govern- 
ment, which  he  regarded  as  an  abuse,  and  that  he 
dreamed  of  a  social  revolution  that  would  result 
in  the  levelling  of  all  rank  and  the  overthrow  of 
authority.  Professor  Herron  finds  "the  science  of 
society"  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  he 
regards  as  "  a  treatise  on  political  economy,"  and  a 
German  socialist  thinks  that  were  Jesus  on  the  earth 
to-day  he  would  affiliate  with  the  social  democrats. 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY    219 

The  elaborate  work  of  the  German  pastor  Todt  under- 
took to  prove  by  a  detailed  exegesis  that  the  New 
Testament  supports  the  creed  of  socialism.  Even 
the  so-called  Social  Democracy  of  Germany,  apart 
from  its  irreligion,  might,  according  to  Todt,  appeal 
to  the  New  Testament,  while  the  true  socialism, 
which  is  designated  "  Christian,"  may  be  said  to  rest 
upon  it  as  its  book  of  principles.  Brake's  refutation 
of  Todt,  however,  shows  the  futility  of  all  attempts 
to  find  in  the  New  Testament  the  "  programme  "  of 
any  social  system.^ 

It  may,  then,  be  regarded  as  the  conclusion  of 
an  unbiassed  exegesis  that  the  student  of  the  New 
Testament  who  goes  to  it  without  a  preconceived 
theory  will  find  in  it  neither  a  social  philosophy,  nor 
the  foundations,  nor  the  outlines  of  a  social  system. 
Jesus  confined  his  social  teachings  to  expressing 
sympathy  with  tlie  poor,  to  enjoining  the  duties  of 
the  brotherhood  of  man,  to  enforcing  the  practice  of 
kindness,  helpfulness,  and  charity,  and  to  setting 
before  men  the  supreme  example  of  the  divine 
benevolence.  He  also  indicated  in  unmistakable 
terms  his  hostility  to  the  selfish  greed  that  accumu- 
lates riches  to  the  injury  of  the  weak,  that  "  devours 

1  Ber  christliche  Socialismus  des  Ffarrer's  Todt.    Eine  theologische 
Kritik,  vou  G.  Brake,  1879. 


V 


220  RICH  AND  POOR 

widows'  houses,"  and  to  wealth  itself  as  one  of  the 
evil  powers  of  a  wicked  age,  "  the  Mammon  of  un- 
righteousness." He  prophesied  no  time  when  poverty 
and  its  attendant  distress  would  be  done  away,  and 
there  would  no  longer  be  any  demands  upon  human 
sympathy  and  charity.  Rather  with  touching  pathos 
he  said,  "  The  poor  ye  have  always  with  you."  Paul 
went  little  farther  than  to  condemn  avarice,  to  pro- 
mote a  collection  in  his  gentile  churches  for  the  poor 
Christians  in  Jerusalem,  and  to  indite  an  immortal 
hymn  to  love.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  James 
deprecates  discrimination  against  the  poor,  and  pro- 
nounces a  woe  upon  the  rich  and  those  who  "trade 
and  get  gain." 

If,  then,  the  teachers  whose  words  are  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament  did  not  recognise  a  social 
problem  as  understood  in  the  present  age,  were  not 
anarchists  hostile  to  every  social  regulation,  did  not 
occupy  themselves  with  a  philosophy  of  society,  were 
indifferent  to  theories  of  political  economy,  and  ex- 
pressed no  predilection  for  any  social  system,  whether 
that  of  wages  or  that  of  socialism,  what  relation  can 
their  teachings  have  to  the  problems  that  have  long 
vexed  every  civilised  society,  and  that  are  from  year 
to  year  becoming  more  complicated  and  urgent  ? 

The  New  Testament  teachers  were  not  practical 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY    221 

reformers,  and  they  appear  never  to  have  thought  of 
organising  a  social  polity.  On  the  contrary,  they  were 
idealists  with  very  definite  conceptions  of  the  ethical 
ends  of  the  individual  life.  Their  conspicuous 
ideals  were  humanity,  brotherhood,  righteousness, 
and  charity,  and  they  did  not  concern  themselves 
with  the  most  effective  method  of  realising  them  in 
a  social  order.  To  them  it  was  the  chief  thing  that 
men  should  be  humane,  fraternal,  just,  and  kind. 
It  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  Jesus  favoured  the 
doubtful  policy  of  almsgiving,  and  that  Paul  was 
content  with  raising  a  contribution  for  the  poor, 
and  said  nothing  about  establishing  a  Christian 
communism.  Whatever,  accordingly,  the  New  Testa- 
ment can  furnish  us  that  may  be  helpful  in  the 
solution  of  our  social  problems  must  be  found  in  its 
suggestions  and  inspirations  toward  the  great  ethical 
achievements  that  it  sets  before  men.  Principles  the 
seeker  will  find  in  it,  not  systems.  There  is  the 
Golden  Eule  as  an  ideal  and  a  life-giving  principle, 
but  no  social  order,  no  economical  system  in  which 
it  can  best  be  realised  is  laid  down,  whether  the 
wages- system,  profit-sharing,  or  socialism.  The  great 
Idealist  has  given  us  the  one,  the  other  men  must 
find  out  for  themselves  in  the  school  of  experience, 
in  the  stress  of  economic  life. 


222  EICH  AND  POOE 

Among  the  ideals  presented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  lend  themselves  to  an  application  to  the 
social  question  may  be  mentioned  the  precedence 
given  to  ethical  and  spiritual  aims  and  achievements 
over  material  interests  and  gains.  The  so-called 
goods  of  this  vv^orld  are  by  all  its  teachers  sub- 
ordinated to  the  things  of  the  spirit.  "A  man's 
life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  that 
he  possesseth  " ;  "  The  life  is  more  than  the  food  "  ;  ^ 
"  But  put  ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make 
not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof" ; 
"  If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  must  die ;  but  if  by 
the  spirit  ye  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall 
live."  ^  No  man  who  does  not  profess  the  creed  of 
materialism  can  doubt  the  truth  of  these  words  of 
the  great  spiritual  prophets.  We  are  not  concerned 
here  with  proving  them  to  be  true.  Let  the  appeal 
be  made  to  experience  and  history.  The  social  lesson 
that  they  teach  is  that  the  true  aim  of  human  life 
is  not  possessions,  gain,  the  means  of  luxury,  but  the 
practice  of  the  moral  virtues,  the  quickening  of  one's 
life  through  devoting  it  to  the  good  of  others,  the 
subordination  of  one's  activities  to  righteousness, 
honesty,  kindness,  and  fraternity.  Who  can  estimate 
the  influence  that  these  ideals  would  exert  upon  the 

»  Luke  xii.  15,  23.  ^  Horn.  viii.  13  ;  xiii.  14. 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY    223 

social  order  if  they  could  be  made  supreme  ?  How 
.much  less  would  there  be  of  unscrupulous  gain,  of 
the  hot  chase  after  riches,  of  the  fever  of  demoralis- 
ing speculation,  of  the  selfish  greed  that  cares  not 
whom  it  destroys,  of  the  hard-hearted  indifference  to 
the  poor,  whose  bodies  and  souls  are  converted  into 
machines  for  producing  wealth ! 

The  paramount  worth  of  the  individual  man  in 
the  higher  relations  and  possibilities  of  his  life  is  a 
New  Testament  principle  that  is  applicable  to  our 
subject.  It  is  plainly  implied  in  the  parable  of  the 
Lost  Sheep,  which  the  shepherd  goes  into  the  moun- 
tains to  seek,  and  in  Paul's  injunction  that  no  one 
put  a  stumbling-block  in  his  brother's  way  or  an 
occasion  of  falling.^  Few  more  fruitful  principles 
are  contained  in  the  gospel  of  Jesus  than  this,  that 
the  worth  and  welfare  of  the  human  soul  are  of  such 
inestimable  importance  that  the  individual  should 
not  be  made  the  slave  of  the  institutions  that  men 
establish.  They  are  made  for  him,  not  he  for  them.^ 
This  principle  is  violated  in  the  social  order  when 
men  let  wealth  become  their  master,  and  make  them- 
selves slaves  to  their  possessions,  while  in  the  fierce 
rush  for  gain  they  forget  the  upward  look,  and  shut 
their  hearts  against  sympathy.    It  is  more  flagrantly 

'  Matt.  .wiii.  12  ;  iloiu.  xiv.  13.  '^  Mark  ii.  27. 


224  EICH  AND  POOK 

violated  when  whole  classes  of  the  poor  are  made 
subject  to  an  iron  system  in  which  law  rules  without 
the  alleviation  that  kindness  and  a  fraternal  feeling 
might  afford,  in  which  the  weak  go  down  in  despair 
while  the  strong  do  not  extend  the  helping  hand,  and 
in  which  masses  of  men  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
if  they  were  made  for  the  service  of  Mammon,  and 
not  as  if  Mammon  had  no  reason  for  being  enthroned 
and  accorded  service  unless  in  order  to  promote  the 
higher  ends  of  humanity. 

The  teaching  that  the  gaining  of  the  whole  world 
is  to  be  deprecated  if  in  such  an  acquisition  the 
paramount  interests  of  a  man  are  put  in  jeopardy, 
has  a  manifest  and  natural  relation  to  the  social 
question.  An  implied  warning  is  here  not  far  to  seek. 
The  hazard  of  seeking  to  grasp  the  whole  world  is 
that  of  losing  in  the  attempt  all  that  is  worth  living 
for.  The  inference  with  respect  to  acquiring  and 
using  earthly  possessions  is  evident.  They  should 
serve  the  end  of  securing  an  existence  that  is  worthy 
of  a  spiritual  being.  They  are  not  an  end  in  them- 
selves, since  as  such  they  are  a  peril  to  the  true 
welfare  of  their  possessor.  The  imminent  hazards  of 
wealth  as  they  saw  it,  doubtless  determined  the 
attitude  toward  it  taken  by  the  New  Testament 
teachers.     It  requires  no  supernatural  intervention 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   225 

to  bring  a  "  woe "  upon  the  rich  who  do  not  hold 
their  wealth  in  the  spirit  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
comes  as  the  swift  and  inevitable  sequence  of  the 
selfishness  that  obscures  the  vision  of  the  spirit. 

If,  then,  wealth  can  be  acquired  and  held  without 
spiritual  hazards  only  when  it  is  made  the  means  of 
securing  an  existence  worthy  of  a  spiritual  being,  its 
perils  can  be  averted  only  by  making  it  serve  the 
welfare  of  the  weak,  dependent,  and  poor.  Its 
possessor  need  not  distribute  it  in  alms  according 
to  the  letter  of  Jesus'  words.  He  may  make  it  serve 
the  most  humane  ends  by  keeping  it  in  his  possession 
as  the  foundation  of  beneficent  industries.  If  he 
subordinate  it  to  human  welfare  he  may,  according  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Master's  teaching,  or  at  least  accord- 
ing to  a  legitimate  application  of  it,  become  "  perfect." 
He  can  make  it  serve  the  highest  ends  in  himself 
only  when  he  regards  it  as  a  trust  to  be  employed 
in  such  economic  uses  or  for  such  social  purposes 
as  promote  human  improvement  and  progress. 

Opposed  to  the  New  Testament  spirit,  therefore, 
is  the  idea  of  wealth,  according  to  which  it  is 
regarded  as  a  means  to  sensuous  enjoyment,  to 
sumptuous  living,  and  to  distinction  and  power.  The 
prevalence  of  this  idea  among  many  of  those  who  are 
eminent  in  the  financial  world  is  to  be  regretted 

15 


226  EICH  AND  POOE 

since  it  generates  in  multitudes  below  a  striving  for 
riches  to  tlie  same  end.  Over  against  this  conception 
of  earthly  possessions  stands,  majestic  and  uncom- 
promising, the  New  Testament  ideal  of  the  true  goods 
of  life  as  consisting  of  humanity,  righteousness,  justice, 
and  brotherhood — an  ideal  that  subordinates  the 
manner  of  living  to  the  quality  of  life,  possessions  to 
character.  It  is  due  to  the  former  point  of  view 
that  the  agitations  and  conflicts  in  the  social  order 
turn  almost  entirely  upon  questions  of  economics. 
The  social  question  is  concerned  rather  with  how 
much  every  one  is  to  get  than  with  what  every  one 
is  to  become.  The  gigantic  materialism  of  the  times 
overtops  and  hides  from  the  view  of  men  the  idealism 
of  the  New  Testament. 

So  far  as  men  in  their  economic  strivings  and  in 
their  deification  of  Wealth  contemn  religion,  and  dis- 
regard the  spiritual  ideals  of  its  great  teachers,  and 
so  far  as  getting  more  is  paramount  with  all  classes 
to  manhood  and  character,  so  far  do  they  all  con- 
tribute to  the  eclipse  of  faith  and  to  the  advent  of 
a  people  without  God  in  the  world.  "  A  social  order 
that  sets  up  the  economic  life  as  the  highest  goal  of 
mankind,  and  as  the  ultimate  purpose  of  this  economic 
life  the  full  product  of  the  labour  of  the  individual 
in  the   form  of  means   of  enjoyment,  denotes   the 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   227 

organisation  of  human  society  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  stomach -question.  It  has  materialism  as 
its  presupposition  and  atheism  as  its  necessary 
consequence."  ^ 

The  most  pathetic  aspect  of  the  social  question  is 
presented  in  poverty  with  its  wretchedness,  degrada- 
tion, and  suffering — poverty  that  quenches  the  light 
of  life  in  the  night  of  despair,  poverty  that  results 
from  incapacity,  ignorance,  improvidence,  vice,  and 
incurable  "  taints  of  blood."  That  there  can  be  any 
quick,  magic  "  cure,"  any  sovereign  remedy,  for  this 
through  the  overthrow  of  the  existing  social  order 
and  the  establishment  of  another  may  be  argued, 
but  yet  remains  to  be  shown.  This  condition  with 
all  its  woes  appears  to  be  incidental  in  the  evolution 
of  mankind.  The  race  cannot  be  lifted  out  of  it, 
but  must  grow  out  of  it ;  and  growth  is  slow.  The 
effective  remedy  will  be  found  to  be  not  a  new 
system,  but  a  new  spirit;  and  a  spirit  proceeds 
neither  by  magic  nor  by  leaps  and  bounds.  Allevia- 
tion of  present  distress  is  in  many  cases  all  that  can 
be  done,  and  to  do  this  is  to  carry  out  the  spirit  of 
the  teaching  of  him  who  "  went  about  doing  good." 
In  the  same  spirit  a  wise  charity  will  seek  to  remove 

^  Brake,  Der  christliche  Socialismiis  des  Pfarrers  Todt,  1879, 
p.  30. 


228  RICH  AND  POOR 

the  causes  of  poverty;  but  here  it  encounters  the 
difficulty  that  in  most  cases  the  task  is  beyond 
human  skill.  It  accords  with  our  present  purpose 
to  remark  only  that  the  vast  achievements  of  charity 
in  this  age,  the  great  institutions  and  the  beneficent 
activities  individual  and  organised  that  promote  it, 
however  far  short  they  may  come  of  realising  the 
highest  ideal  of  humanity,  are  attempts  to  embody 
and  give  practical  effect  to  the  ethical  principles  and 
humane  sympathies  and  aspirations  of  the  New 
Testament  teachers. 

The  aim  and  scope  of  this  monograph  do  not 
admit  of  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  the  complicated 
question  of  the  relations  of  labour  and  capital. 
"Whether  or  no  the  problem  can  be  solved  under  the 
existing  social  order  without  a  strain  that  will 
rupture  it,  few  are  competent  to  determine,  and  the 
present  writer  does  not  pretend  to  be  one  of  these 
few.  The  solution  that  socialism  offers  is  not  likely 
for  yet  a  long  time  to  be  applied.  It  has  already 
been  pointed  out  in  these  pages  that  the  New 
Testament  does  not  specifically  recommend  this 
system,  although  it  would  be  hazardous  to  maintain 
that  it  is  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  that  Book.  So 
much  as  this  may  at  least  be  said,  that  every  one 
who   has   the   spirit   of    the   New   Testament   will 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   229 

sympathise  with  the  labouring  classes  in  all  the 
legitimate  efforts  that  they  may  make  toward  an 
improvement  of  their  condition.  He  will  extend  a 
hand  to  help  them  in  attaining  an  existence  w^orthy 
of  men  for  themselves  and  their  families.  Equality 
is,  indeed,  not  attainable  in  a  world  in  which 
inequality  of  natural  endowment  inexorably  fixes  the 
limits  of  every  man's  achievement.  But  to  rise  to  a 
plane  of  life  that  has  an  intellectual  and  spiritual 
horizon  is  a  rational  ideal  for  every  man. 

It  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  great 
ethical  and  religious  teachers  whose  words  we  have 
been  considering  that  the  strong,  the  prosperous,  and 
the  mighty  in  the  industrial  world  should  extend 
sympathy  to  the  weak,  the  dependent,  and  the  poor. 
Nothing  short  of  a  lively  interest  in  their  welfare, 
and  so  far  as  possible  a  personal  interest,  can  meet 
the  requirements  of  human  brotherhood.  The  ideal 
is  certainly  not  Utopian  "  that  necessitates  the 
*  human  touch '  in  all  social  relationships,  and  rejects 
every  tendency  on  the  part  of  an  employer  to  treat 
the  men  whom  he  employs  as  if  they  were  machines 
or  animals  of  another  and  lower  species  than  him- 
self." ^      No  one  who  has  given  even  a  superficial 

^  N.  P.  Oilman,  A  Dividend  to  Labour:  A  Study  of  Employers 
Welfare  Institutions,  1899,  p.  15. 


230  EICH  AND  POOK 

attention  to  the  subject  can  be  ignorant  of  the  almost 
insuperable  difficulties  that  confront  the  employer 
in  his  relations  with  the  employed.  The  two  are  so 
far  apart  in  their  respective  points  of  view  and 
knowledge  of  the  situation  that  hostility  is  more 
likely  to  arise  than  a  mutual  understanding  to  be 
reached.  But  humanity  on  the  part  of  the  employer 
and  fair  dealing  on  both  sides  will  clear  away  many 
difficulties.  The  greed  that  disregards  the  welfare 
of  the  poor  and  dependent,  and  is  opposed  to  the 
Christian  spirit,  is  one  of  the  first  factors  of  the  social 
problem  to  be  removed.  It  should  never  have  been 
necessary  for  the  State,  in  order  to  protect  women 
and  children  and  the  lives  and  health  of  its  citizens, 
to  legislate  against  the  selfishness  that  respected 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other. 

The  recognition  of  the  man,  the  brother,  in  the 
labourer  on  the  part  of  the  employer  is  in  accord 
with  Jesus'  estimate  of  the  worth  of  the  individual, 
and  neither  our  present  social  system  nor  any  other 
conceivable  one  can  get  on  without  this.  The  Bishop 
of  London,  speaking  in  1898  of  the  modern  industrial 
system,  remarked  that  "  the  man  was  hastily  con- 
verted into  the  'hand,'  and  the  conditions  of  his 
humanity,  which  had  never  been  absent  from  con- 
sideration before,  were  suddenly  left  out  of  calcula- 


THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION  OF  TO-DAY   231 

tion,  .  .  .  The  '  hand '  must  again  be  converted  into 
the  man  on  the  broader  basis  that  the  development 
of  common  life  demands."  ^  The  doctrine  of  human 
brotherhood  leads  to  a  conception  of  the  solidarity  of 
the  race  that  should  radically  change  the  prevalent 
notion  of  business  from  that  of  an  occupation  in 
which  is  concerned  the  gain  of  an  individual  or  a 
corporation  to  that  of  a  matter  vitally  touching 
society  and  the  welfare  of  the  many.  Eeally  no  one 
can  have  an  interest  in  anything  that  opposes,  one 
might  even  say  that  does  not  promote,  the  general 
welfare.  Mr.  Frederick  Harrison  remarks  pertinently 
to  this  point  that  "The  problem  is:  How  can  the 
devil  of  separate  interests,  the  power  that  drives  man 
apart  from  man,  be  banished  from  the  human  heart  ? 
Hope  lies  in  the  progressive  realisation  that  despite 
all  transient,  contrary  seemings  we  have  all  really 
one  life,  that  we  are  members  one  of  another,  that 
the  true  order  of  the  universe  is  such  that  the 
interests  of  all  men  and  all  nations  are  identical,  that 
in  universal  mutual  service  alone  are  to  be  found 
true  progress  and  true  prosperity  for  all." 

We  must  leave  it  to  the  students  of  social  science 
to  point  out  in  detail  the  means  of  solving  the 
intricate   problems    that  wealth  and  poverty  force 

1  Quoted  by  Professor  Oilman  in  A  Dividend  to  Labour,  p.  18. 


232  EICH  AND  POOK 

upon  their  attention.  Our  task  has  been  accomplished 
if  we  have  succeeded  in  showing  how  in  a  general 
way  the  ethical  ideals  presented  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment may  furnish  guidance  and  inspiration  in  this 
great  task.  If  we  have  not  found  any  definite  form 
of  a  system  of  society  indicated  in  its  pages,  we 
have  found,  it  is  hoped,  the  basis  of  every  true  and 
permanent  social  order  because  the  foundation  of 
all  true  living  for  the  individual  man.  Let  not  men 
reject  the  spirit  of  its  great  teachings  because  they 
stumble  at  the  letter.  Eather  let  them  apply  this 
spirit  to  the  social  problems  of  every  age,  and  thus 
hasten  the  advent  of  the  kingdom  of  brotherhood  and 
peace. 


INDEX    OF    SUBJECTS    AND    NAMES 


Acts,  writer  of,  his  predilection 

for  the  poor,  145f. 
Adaptation  to  hearers  and  readers 

by  Jesus  and  Paul,  195  f. 
Age,  "this,"  and  that  "to  come," 

81 
Agriculture,  followed  by  Hebrews 

in  Canaan,  12 
Agur,  prayer  of,  6 
Almsgiving,  a  means  of  attaining 

eternal  life,  65 
wasteful  relief  of  poor,  72 
regarded    by    Jesus    as    meri- 
torious, 112  f.,  221 
in  the  later  Judaism,  113 
no    other   disposal    of  wealth 

recommended      by      Jesus, 

114 
Amos,  his   description   of  social 

conditions,  17 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  145 
Antinomy  in  Hebrew  thought  as 

to  riches  and  poverty,  24  ff. 
Apocalyptic     interpretations     of 

kingdom  of  God,  82 
Ascetic,  Jesus  not  an,  217 
Authority    of    New    Testament, 

210,  212 

Bacon,  Professor  B.  W.,  referred 

to,  505 
Baldensperger,  quoted,  77 

referred  to,  82 
Barnabas,  sale  of  his  field,  145 
Baur,  referred  to,  41 

quoted,  148 


Beatitudes  in  Matthew  regarded 

as    more    "  spiritual  "    than 

those  in  Luke,  101 
limitation  of  scope  of,  92,  128 
Benevolence  toward  the  poor  in 

the  Old  Testament,  29 
Bertholet,  referred  to,  30,  47 
"  Blessed,"  the,  in  the  judgment 

of  history,  83 
Blessing  on  the  poor  in  Matthew 

and  Luke,  98  f.,  123  f. 
Borrower,  the  poor,  33 
Bossuet,  referred  to,  82 

quoted,  120 
Brake,  referred  to,  219 

quoted,  227 
Brandt,  quoted,  96 
Brotherhood,     requirements     of, 

229 
Buhl,  referred  to,  7,  10,  23,  24, 

34,  38 

Campbell,  Colin,  referred  to,  63 
Canaan,  Hebrews  in,  12 
Capital,  a  beneficent  social  force, 

199 
Celil)acy  and  marriage,  192 
Charity,  achievements  of,  in  this 

age,  228 
Cheek,  turning  the  other,  64,  197 
Children,  selling  of,  into  slavery, 

34 
Christianity  and  Judaism,  relation 

of,  1 
Commerce,  relation  of,  to  social 

inequality,  13 


23c 


234 


KICH  AND  POOK 


Communism  not  organised  among 
primitive  Christians  in  Jeru- 
salem, 157 

Confidence  in  God  regarding 
earthly  goods,  85 

Covenant,  Book  of  the,  on  slavery 
and  loans  to  the  poor,  33 

Covetous,  Paul  on  the,  167 

Creditors,  protection  of,  in  Hebrew 
legislation,  34 

"  Cure  "  of  poverty,  227 

Debtors,  sale  of,  into  slavery,  34 
law    in    favour    of    regarding 
pledges,  34 

Demonology  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 171 

Deuteronomic  legislation,  humane 
provisions  of,  38 
humanity  toward  slaves  in,  32 

Deuteronomy  forbids    taking  in- 
terest of  a  Jew,  34 
provision    in,    for     release    of 
debtor,  36 

Diclache,  referred  to,  181,  185 

Divorce,  Jesus'  teaching  of,  in  the 
synoptics,  89  f. 

Dress,  extravagance  in,  denounced, 
180 

Driver,  referred  to,  11,  31,  36,  40 

Duty  of  rich  toward  the  poor, 
215 

Earthly  possessions  not  an  end  in 
themselves,  224 

Employer  and  employed,  230 

End  of  the  age,  81,  83 

Ephesians,  author  of,  on  avarice, 
177 

Epistles,  the  post-Pauline,  176  f., 
188 

Eschatological  point  of  view,  81  f. 

Eschatology  and  soteriology,  93 

Ethics  not  a  leading  consideration 
in  dealing  with  social  ques- 
tions in  the  Bible,  3 
of    Jesus    apart    from    escha- 
tology, 86  f. 

Evolution,  social,  among  Hebrews, 
7 


Exile,    the   law   of  release   after 
the,  3,  7 
great  prophet  of  the,  on  duty 
to  the  poor,  4 

Family,  Jesus'  teaching  of,  89 
Jesus'  relation  to  his,  90 

Fast,  the  true,  in  the  second 
Isaiah,  4 

Fatherhood  of  God,  208 

Feine,  referred  to,  63 

Fenton,  John,  referred  to,  40 

Figurative  language,  214 

Fraternity  among  primitive  Chris- 
tians, 154,  157 

Futurity,  as  regarded  by  the  New 
Testament  teachers,  196 

Gentile  -  Christian    Gospel,    Luke 

the,  59 
Gentiles  in  the  first  Gospel,  57 
Gilman,  Professor  N.  P.,  quoted, 

229 
referred  to,  231 
Gleaning,  law  regarding,  89 
God,  Fatherhood  of,  73 
Golden  Rule,  the,  73 
Goodness  of  God,  the,  attempt  of 

Hebrews  to  reconcile  it  with 

the  sufferings  of  the  poor, 

276 
Gospel,  the,  of  Jesus,  good  tidings 

to  the  poor,  70 
Gospels,  importance  of  study  of 

sources  of,  49 
composed  from  written  sources, 

50,  52,  53 
variations  in,  53 
relation  of,  to  readers  and  to 

problems  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity, 55 

Hand  and  man,  the  Bishop  of 
London  on,  231 

Harrison,  Mr.  Frederick,  quoted, 
231 

Hatred  of  kindred,  141 

Hebrew  legislation  as  to  rich  and 
poor,  products  of  the  his- 
torical periods,  6 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  NAMES   235 


Hebrews,  writer   of,   on   wealth, 
178 

Hermas  on  riches,  184,  187 

Herron,    Professor,    referred    to, 
218 

Holiness  Law,  humane  provisions 
of  the,  31 
on  taking  interest,  34 

Holtzmann,  referred  to,   51,  5S, 
63,  66,  71,  76,  96,  121 
quoted,  86,  150 

Holzinger,  referred  to,  31,  34 

Humanity  in  Deuteronomic  legis- 
lation, 38 

Hungi-y,  beatitude  upon  the,  124 

Hyperbole,  84,  214 

Ideal,  the  primitive  Christian,  207 
Ideal  character  of  law  of  release, 

37 
Idealism  of  prophets,  the,  21,  29 
Ideals    of  humanity    among   the 
Hebrews,  46  f. 
social,  in  the  New  Testament, 
222  f. 
Indifference  to  food,  clothing,  etc., 

85 
Individual,  worth  of  tlie,  230 
Isaiah  on  women  of  Jerusalem,  19 
Israel,  nomadic  life  of,  prior  to 
settlement  in  Canaan,  7 
conflict  of,  with  Canaanites,  8 
transformation    of    life    of,  in 
Canaan,  10 

Jacob,  schemes   of,    in   relations 

with  Laban  and  Esau,  9 
Jacoby,  referred  to,  94,  97 

quoted,  104,  146 
James,  Epistle  of,  compared  with 
Luke,  62 
denunciation  of  rich  in,  177 
on  rich  and  poor,  182  f.,  185  f. 
on  trading   and   getting  gain, 
201 
Jephtha,  career  of,  12 
Jeremiah  on  oppression  of  poor, 

20 
Jesus,    relation     of    authors    of 
Gospels  to,  49 


Jesus,  primary  object  of  mission 
of,  68,  94  f. 
intention    of,    as    to    plan    for 

social  order,  72 
on  giving  alms,  72 
had  no  interest  in  "sociological " 

problems,  73 
standpoint  of,  73 
his  point  of  view  revealed  in 

his  message,  74 
his   iiroclamation   of  kingdom 

of  God,  74  ff. 
his  profound  apprehension   of 

kingdom  of  God,  78 
social  perspective  of,  82,  211 
on  non-resistance,  83,  197 
on  indifference  to  things  of  this 

world,  85 
ethical  teaching  of  two  kinds, 

86  f. 
his  indifference  to  family  ties, 

90 
says  nothing  of  moral  dangers 

of  poverty,  97 
eschatological  expectations  of, 

192,  211 
not  an  ascetic,  217 
Jews,  hostility  to,  in  first  Gospel, 

57 
Job,  "  blessed  "  with  riches,  25 
his  justification  of  himself,  30 
Josephus,  his  want  of  interest  in 
the  social  question,  23 
referred  to,  42 
Joshua  and  Judges  show  no  traces 

of  the  social  question,  11 
Josiah  and  Jehoiakim  in  relation 

to  poor,  20 
Jubilee,  Year  of,  42,  44 
Judges  on  relations  of  Israel  with 

Canaanites,  11 
Judgment,     the     Messianic,     in 

Matthew,  115 
Jiilicher,  referred  to,  50,  58,  63 

quoted,  111,  130,  136 
Justin  Martyr  on  community  of 
goods,  152 

Kambli,  quoted,  95,  207 
Keim,  referred  to,  58 


236 


EICH  AND  POOE 


Kingdom  of  God,  Jesus'  proclama- 
tion of,  74 

conditions  of  entering,  75 

gift  of  God,  75 

not  an  acliievement  of  men, 
76 

for  the  poor,  76 

conception  not  original  with 
Jesus,  77 

Jewish  and  Christian  concep- 
tions of,  77 

eschatological,  79,  81 

sudden  coming  of,  80 

not  of  present  and  fiitiire,  87 

dominance  of,  in  teaching  of 
Jesus,  88 

Labourer,  the,  and  his  hire,  181 
Labouring  classes,  sympathy  with, 

229 
Law,  the  Jewish,  its  humanity  to 
the  poor,  31  f. 
Paul  on  going  to,  by  Christians, 
168 
Lietzmann,  referred  to,  80 
Life  eternal  and  kingdom  of  God, 

198 
Lord's    Prayer   in   Matthew  and 

Luke,  54 
Love,  Paul's  teaching  of,  163 
Luke,  Gospel  according  to,  sources 
of,  52,  66,  119  f. 
a  Gospel  for  gentile  Christians, 

59 
intensification    of    interest    in 

poor  in,  61  f.,  66,  118 
Rogge  on  sources  of,  67 
Liltgert,  quoted,  85 

Maccabees,  social  conditions  under 
the,  23 

Malachi,  on  the  greed  of  op- 
pressors, 21  f. 

''  Mammon  of  unrighteousness," 
the,  64,  132  f. 

Mark,   Gospel  according  to,   the 
oldest  and  basis  of  the  other 
two  synoptics,  50 
probably  dependent  on  sources, 
50 


Marriage,  sanctity  of,  in  teaching 
of  Jesus,  89 
celibacy  preferred  to,  192 
Marti,  referred  to,  19 
Mathews,  Shailer,  quoted,  134 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  a  composite 
work,  51 
Jewish-Christian  character  of, 

55  f. 
high  repute  of,  among  ancients 

and  moderns,  58 
social  teachings  in,  92  flF. 
Messianic  domain,  the,  point  of 
departure  of  Jesus,  77  7wte 
judgment,  the,  81 
Meyer,  A.,  referred  to,  80 
Micah  on  oppression  of  the  poor, 

18 
Mission  of  Jesus,  to  what  class 

primarily,  94 
Monasticism,  basis  of,  154 

Naumann,  referred  to,  72,  93 
Neander,  quoted,  147 
Needle's  eye,  the,  108,  113 
Nehemiah,  interest  of,  in  the  poor 
and  oppressed,  22 

and  conditions  after  the  exile,  35 
New  Testament  regarded  as  Book 

of  Life,  210 
New  Testament  writers  and  social 
problems,  189 

children  of  their  age,  190  f. 

on  slavery,  192 

their  idealism,  221 
Newton,  Heber,  referred  to,  151 
Nomadic  life  of  Israel,  absence  of 
social  problems  in,  8 

cunning  and  deception  in,  9 
Non-resistance,  83  f.,  197 
Nowack,  referred  to,  9 

quoted,  21,  40,  41 

on  Year  of  Jubilee,  45 

Ointment,    the    precious,    Jesus' 

words  on.  111 
Old  Testament,  interpretation  of, 

in  the  Gospels,  56 
Oppression,    royal,    depicted    in 

First  Samuel,  14f. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  NAMES    237 


Oriental  mode  of  thought,  inter- 
pretation according  to,  84 
style,  84,  214 

Outward  form  and  inward  truth, 
216 

Parable  of  Unjust  Steward,  64  f., 
131  f. 
Rich    Corn-grower,    129,   199, 

204 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  134  f. 
Pastoral  Epistles,  the,  on  riches, 

etc.,  179  f. 
Paul,  his  method,  159 
on  rich  and  poor,  160 
his  religious  interest  in  solution 

of  ethical  problems,  161 
his  teaching  of  fraternity,  163  f. 
on  love,  163 

his  reproof  of  the  rich,  166 
his  opposition  to  greed,  167  f. 
on  going  to  law,  168  f. 
his  zeal  for  the  collection  for 

the  poor,  171 
his  social  perspective,  174 
Peabody,  quoted,  87,  100,  109, 

112 
Peasants,  hardships  of,  in  Israel, 

19 
Permanent  and  transient,  1 89  ff. 
Perspective,   social,  in  the   New 

Testament,  82,  211 
Pfleiderer,  referred  to,  51,  94, 123 

quoted,  154 
Pledges,    regulations    as    to,    in 

Hebrew  legislation,  34 
Plumer,  quoted,  122,  141 
Poor,  the,  protected  by  God,  4  f. 
prominence  of  interest  in,   in 

the  Gospels,  68  f. 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the 

Pharisees,  97 
beatitude  upon,  98 
"in  spirit,"  meaning  of,  98  f. 
predisposition  of,  for  the  king- 
dom of  (Jod,  124 
Poverty,  no  cure  for,  proposed  by 
Jesus,  71 
moral  perils  of,  disregarded  by 
Jesus,  97 


Poverty,  temptations  of,  200 
presents   a  pathetic    aspect   of 

the  social  question,  227 
incidental  in  human  evolution, 
227 
Priests'  Code,  the,  compared  with 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  40 
modifications  of  earlier  law  in, 
43 
Prophecy,   conception  of,  in  the 

New  Testament,  191  f. 
Prophets  champions  of  the  poor, 
17,  20 
idealism  of,  21,  29 
Proverbs,  writer  of,  regards  social 
question  from  religious  point 
of  view,  5 

Release,  law  of,  in  Deuteronomy, 

36  f. 
Religion,  contempt  of,  226 
Religious  interest  in   social  pro- 
blems, 3,  5 
note    in    Jesus'    teaching    of 
wealth,  103 
Renan,  referred  to,  58,  63,  151, 

218 
Repentance  as  preparation  for  the 
kingdom  of  God,  76 
reason  for,  in  Jesus'  teaching,  88 
Restoration  of  the  earth,  82 
Rich,  antipathy  to,  in  Luke,  64 
as  seen  by  Jesus,  101 
man,  Jesus'  answer  to,  106  f., 

203 
Corn -grower.    Parable  of  the, 

129,  199,  204 
Man  and  Lazarus,  Parable  of, 

134  f. 
the,   how   regarded    by   Jesus, 
Paul,    and    the    author    of 
James,  210  f. 
Riches,  temptations  of,  in  Deuter- 
onomist,  5 
and    poverty,     Agur's    prayer 

against,  26 
antinomy  regarding,  in  the  Old 

Testament,  27 
hindrance  of,  to  attaining  the 
kingdom  of  God,  106 


238 


EICH  AND  POOR 


Rogge,  referred  to,  63,  109,  181 

quoted,  67,  111 
Eoot,  Edward  Tallmadge,  referred 
to,  36 

Sabbatic  Year,  legislation  regard- 
ing the,  39  f. 
impracticable  character  of,  41 
Samuel,    First,    picture   of  royal 

oppression  in,  14f. 
Sanday,  quoted,  122 
Satan,  fall  of,  79 
Saul,  King  of  Israel,  13 
Schmidt,  N.,  referred  to,  80 
Schmiedel,  referred  to,  60 
Schmoller,  referred  to,  82 

quoted,  157,  173 
Scbnedermann,  referred  to,  77 
Schiirer,  referred  to,  77 

quoted,  73,  138 
Schwartzkopif,  referred  to,  194 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Matthew 

and  Luke,  54,  66,  120  f. 
Slavery  recognised  and  regulated, 

32  f. 
Slaves,  relief  for,  in  Book  of  the 

Covenant,  33 
Social     problems     in     Old     and 

New    Testament,    similarity 

of,  2 
point  of  view  absent  from  Old 

and  New  Testament,  3 
question  not  in  Jesus'  thought, 

92 
Socialism,  228 
Sociological   interest,  absence   of 

in  Jesus'  teaching,  103 
Solomon,  social  inequalities  under, 

14 
splendour  of  his  reign,  14 
successors    of,   social    customs 

under,  16 
Soltau,  quoted,  123 
Son  of  Man,  80 

Soteriology  and  eschatology,  93 
Soul,  worth  of  the,  in  teaching  of 

the  New  Testament,  223 

(\pvxv),  rendering  of,  106  note 

Steward,  the  Unjust,  Parable  of, 

64  f. 


Temporal  goods  added  to  those 
who  seek  the  kingdom,  103 

Temptations    of    riches    in    the 
Deuteronomist,  5 

"Tendency"  in  the  Gospels,  55 

Tertullian  on  community  of  goods, 
153 

Titius,  referred  to,  65,  76,  93,  99 

Todt,  referred  to,  72,  97,  219 
quoted,  78,  88,  120 

Toy,  referred  to,  77 

Transient  and  permanent,  189  ft". 

Treasures  ujjon  the  earth,  102  f. 

Usury,  charged  against  the  nobles 
and  rulers  in  Israel,  22 
regarded  as  interest,  39 


Variations  in  the  Gosj^els,  53  f. 
Vindication  of  the  ways  of  God 

in  social  problems  in  Israel, 

29 


Wealth,  pursuit  of,  synonymous 
with  godlessness,  26 
harshly  characterised  in  Luke, 

64 
Jesus'  attitude  toward,  102 
hazards  of,  as  seen  by  the  New 
Testament  teachers,  224 
Weber,  referred  to,  103 
Weiss,  B.,  quoted,  99,  110,  131 
Weiss,  J.,  referred  to,  60,  63,  65, 
66,  74,  82,  93 
quoted,  88,  120,  126 
Weizsiicker,  referred  to,  51,   58, 
63,  120 
quoted,  132,  150 
Wellhausen,  referred  to,  80 
Wendt,  quoted,  108,  115,  212 

referred  to,  121 
Wernle,  referred  to,  51 
White,  Andrew  D.,  quoted,  38 
Wicked,  the,  prosperity  of,  28 
Widows,    Hebrew   legislation    in 

favour  of,  38 
Woman,  subordination  of,  in  the 
New  Testament,  192 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS  AND  NAMES   239 


World  and  kingdom  of  God  in 
the  thought  of  Jesus,  88 

Yahweh,  protector  of  the  poor,  4 
author  of  poverty  and  riches,  25 
Israel's    trust    in,    for   earthly 
goods,  85  f. 

Year,  Sabbatic,  39  f.,  41 
of  Jubilee,  42 


Year  of  Jubilee,  ideal  character 
of,  45  f. 

Zaccheus,  how  regarded  by  Jesus, 

101 
grounds    of    his     "salvation," 

142 
Zephaniah,    his    denunciation    of 

oppressors  of  the  poor,  20 


INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL  PASSAGES 


Genesis 


V.  22 
xii.  16 
xvii.  23 
xxiv.  35 
XXV.  31 
XXX.  25-43 
zxx.  43     . 


JSxodus 

XX,  22  ;  xxxii.  33 
xxi.  4 


Leviticus 


xxii.  26  f. 
xxii.  26 
xxiii.  25 


xvu.-xxvi. 
xix.  10  . 
xix.  18  . 
xxiii.  22  . 
XXV.  1,  21 
XXV.  8  f.  . 
xxvi.  3  f.  . 
xxvi.  34    . 


Deuteronomy 

vi.  lOf.  . 
viii.  11-14 
XV.  1-3  . 
XV.  12  . 
xxiii.  24,  25 
xxiv.  6,  10,  15 
xxiv.  19-22 


28 
33 
33 
33 
9 
9 
33 


31 
33 
32 
34 
34 


31 
39 
31 
39 
40 
42 
86 
41 


10 
6 
36 
33 
39 
34 
39 


iii.  12-15 
vi.  14 
xi.  1 


ii.  7 

viii.  11-15 
xi.  1-5  . 
xiv.  50 


xxi.  8 


Jitdges 


1  Samuel 


2  Samuel 


1  Kings 

iv.  17  ff. ;  22-24 

X. ;  xi.      . 

xii.  11      .         .         . 

xxi. 


ii.  11 


v.  5,  8 
v.  11-14 


xxix.  12  ff. 
xxxi.  16  f, 
xlii.  12f.  . 


2  Kings 


Nehemiah 


Job 


PA&E 
11 

12 

12 


25 
15 
13 
13 


13 


15 
14 
16 
16 


28 


34 
22 


31 
31 
25 


16 


242 


EICH  AND  POOK 


Psalms 


Amos 


ii.  4 

.     126 

ii.  8 

. 

.       17 

ix.  18 

4 

iii.  15       . 

. 

.      17 

xxxvii.  13 

.     126 

v.  11 

.       17 

xli.  1 

4 

viii.  4 

.      17 

xlix.  11,  20 

.     129 

civ.  14 

.       26 

Micah 

cxii.  3 

.       25 

iii.  1  f.,  11 

.       18 

cxxvi.  1,  2 

.     126 

Zephaniah 

Fmoerbs 

iii.  3 

, 

.       20 

iii.  13 

.       26 

iii.  16 

.       25 

Zecliarial 

iii.  27 
viii.  18 

.       30 
.       25 

vii.  10       . 

5 

xiv.  20 

.       26 

Malachi 

xiv.  21 

30 

xiv.  24 

.       25 

ii.  17 

• 

22 
.       22 

xix,  17 

.     133 

iii.  5 

xxii.  4 
xxii.  22 

.       25 
5 

Matthew 

xxiii.  4 

.       26 

ii.  6 

.     192 

XXX.  8 

.       26 

ii.  15 

.       56 

XXX.  8,  9 

6 

ii.  15,  18 

.     191 

iii.  3 

.     192 

Isaiah 

iii.  9 

.       58 

i.  17 

18 

iii.  12 

.       81 

iii.  15 

.       18 

iv.  1 

.     191 

iii.  16  f. 
V.  8 

.       19 
.       18 

iv.  14 
iv.  17       . 

.     192 

74,  88 

X.  2 

4 

v.-vii. 

54 

xxii.  18 

.       19 

V.  17-19,  5 

23  f., 

17 

.       57 

xiv.  7 

.       25 

V,  28 

87 

1.  1  . 

34 

v.  32 

90 

liii.  9 

.       26 

V.  38,  40 

.     197 

Iviii.  6  f. 

.  5,  30 

V.  39-42 
V.  42 

84 
.     140 

Jeremiah 

vi.  9  f. 
vi.  10 

54,  216 
.      75 

vii.  6,  15  . 

.       20 

vi.  19-21 

.     102 

xxi.  1^,-95 

.       20 

vi.  24 

.     208 

xxii.  16    . 

5 

vi.  25,  26 

.     200 

xxxi.  28  . 

86 

vi.  25-34  , 

.       85 

xxxiv.  14  fif. 

.       45 

vi.  33 
vii.  6,  19  f 

75,  103 

.      57 

E: 

•ekUl 

vii.  28 

.     197 

xviii.  7  ff. 

.       30 

viii.  11 

•5,  125,  127 

xviii.  12,  13 

4 

viii.  10-12 

.       58 

xlvi.  17 

.       45 

ix.  11  f. 

.       95 

INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL  PASSAGES     243 


Matthew 


Mark 


X.  5,  6      . 

57 

i.  15 

74,  88 

X.  7 

74 

ii.  16  f.     . 

.       95 

X.  9  f. 

158 

ii.  18f.     . 

.     217 

X.  38 

107 

ii.  27 

.     223 

X,  39 

106 

iii.  21       .         .         . 

.       90 

X.  42 

11 

5,  127 

iii.  33  tf.  . 

.       90 

xi.  5f.      . 

69 

vii.  10-13 

.       90 

xi.  19 

217 

vii.  21      .         .         . 

87 

xi.  25 

69 

vii.  29      .         .         . 

.     191 

xi.  28 

70 

viii.  35-37 

.     106 

xii.  21 

58 

ix.  1         .         .         . 

78,  80 

xii.  33 

57 

ix.  45-47 

.     108 

xui,  41-46 

75 

X.  11         .          .          . 

87,  89 

xiii.  41      . 

81 

X.  17        .         .         . 

76 

xiv.  35      . 

56 

X.  17,  18 

.       53 

XV.  24 

57 

X.  17-26  . 

.     107 

xvi.  4,  28 

193 

X.  21-28  . 

.     203 

xvi.  18      . 

5 

7,  191 

xi.  29,  30 

.     193 

xvi,  24 

107 

xii.  29  f.  . 

,       87 

xvi.  24-26 

106 

xii.  35-37 

.     193 

xvi.  25  f.  . 

106 

xiii.  27     . 

81 

xviii.  8      . 

108 

xiv.  3-9   . 

.     Ill 

xviii.  12  . 

223 

xiv.  62     . 

.       78 

xviii.  17    . 

57,  58 

xix.  9 

90 

Jjuke 

xix.  16      . 

76 

xix.  16-25 

107 

i.  52 

64,  124 

xix.  17     . 

53 

ii.  31  f.     . 

.        60 

xix.  17,  28 

57 

ii.  52 

.     194 

xix.  21      . 

198 

iii.  11,  14 

.     213 

xix.  28      . 

78 

iv.  16-22  . 

.       69 

xxi.  5 

191 

iv.  16-30  . 

.       60 

xxi.  19,  20 

193 

v.  1-11     . 

.       60 

xxi.  28-32,  43 

58 

vi.  17 

.     197 

xxii.  7 

.       58 

vi.  19-25  . 

.       61 

xxii.  30    . 

.       78 

vi.  20f.,  13       . 

.     123 

xxii.  42-45 

.     193 

vi.  24 

.     198 

xxiii.  4     . 

.       70 

vi.  29,  30 

.       84,  140 

xxiii.  3,  18-20 

.       57 

vi.  30 

.       62 

xxiv.  36    . 

.     194 

vi.  35       . 

.       87 

XXV.  14-30 

.     110 

vi.  38 

.     140 

XXV.  31-46 

78,  115 

vii.  22      . 

.       69 

xxvi.  6-13 

.     Ill 

viii.  2  f.    . 

64 

xxvi.  29    . 

.     125 

viii.  3 

.     158 

xxvii.  24,  25 

.       58 

ix,  3 

.     214 

xxvii.  52,  53 

.     192 

ix.  24,  25 

.     106 

xxviii.  16  fl'. 

.       54 

X.  1-16,  25-37  . 

.       60 

xxviii.  19 

.       58 

X.  9,  11    . 

.       74 

244 


EICH  AND  POOR 


Luke 


Acts 


X.  18        . 

.     194 

ix.  36-41 . 

146 

X.  21        . 

.       69 

X.  2,  31    .         .         ,         .     146 

xi.  17       .        .        . 

.       54 

xi.  28  f.     .         .         .         .     146 

xi.  20       .         .         . 

74,  194 

XX.  33      .         .         .         .     146 

xi.  21       .         .         . 

74 

xi.  26  f.    . 

.       87 

Roma7is 

xi.  29,  30 

.     183 

ii.  8          .         .                   .     191 

xi.  41       .         .         . 

.       65 

V.  9 

191 

xii.  13-21 

.     128 

viii.  13     .         .         . 

ix.  22      . 

xii.  7,  13 

xii.  9,  10     ,      . 

222 

■xii.  15,  23' 

.     222 

191 

xii.  Iff-21          :■     ■    . 

64,iyU"* 

171 

xii.  31      .         ;■■■ 

.      75 

163 

xii.  33      .  62,  72,  11 

4,  141,  213 

xiii.  8       .          .          . 

163 

xiii.  1-5    . 

.       89 

xiii.  10     . 

165 

xiii.  26     .         . 

.       60 

xiii.  14     . 

222 

xiii.  32     . 

.     194 

xiv.  13     .         .         . 

165.  223 

xiv.  12-14         .         6 

4,  141,  214 

xiv.  15-24 

.       60 

1  Corinthians 

xiv.  20     .         . 

.       91 

i.  26-29    .         .                  .166 

xiv.  26     .         .         i 

>1,  141,  216 

V.  5 

186,  191 

xiv.  33     .         .         e 

2,  141,  216 

V.  11 

.     168 

xvi.  1-10 

.       65 

vi.  1-10   . 

168 

xvi.  1-12 

.     131 

vi.  9,  10  . 

168 

xvi.  18     . 

89 

vii.  1,  2,  7,  9,  20-24 

38 

192 

xvi.  19-26 

136,  199 

vii.  1-7     . 

174 

xvii.  10-26 

.       60 

vii.  5 

191 

xvii.  21     . 

.       79 

vii.  24  f.  . 

174  f. 

xvii.  21-31 

80 

vii.  28,  29 

201 

xvii.  28-30 

.     142 

ix.  1-19    . 

170 

xvii.  33    . 

.     106 

ix.  9,  10  . 

191 

xviii.  8     . 

76 

.xi.  20-22  . 

167 

xviii.  22  . 

61,213 

xii.  13      . 

162 

xviii.  29   . 
xix.  1-10. 

91 
.     142 

xiii.  3 
xiii.  13     . 

151 
16,'i 

XX.  41-44 

.     193 

xvi.  2 

151,  172 

xxi.  19     . 

.     106 

xvi.  15 

.     171 

xxii.  30    . 

.     125 

xxiii.  10-24 

.       60 

2  Corinthians 

xxiv.  15-53 

.       54 

v.  16,  17 .         .         .         .     162 

vi.  10       . 

.     166 

Acts 

viii.  4 

171 

ii.  42,  45 . 

.     156 

viii.  9 

.     172 

ii.  44-47  . 

.     144 

viii.  14     . 

151 

iv.  32-35  . 

.      145,  156 

viii.  14  f.. 

173 

iv.  36 

.     145 

ix.  7  f.      . 

127 

V.  1-4       . 

.     145 

ix.  8  f.      . 

.     173 

v.  1,  3f.  . 

.     156 

xi.  7 

170 

viii.  20     . 

.     146 

xii.  14 

.      U 

1,  174 

INDEX  OF  BIBLICAL  PASSAGES     245 


2  Corinthians 

PAGE 

1   Timothy 

PAOE 

xii.  15      .         . 

106 

vi.  6,  9 

202 

XX.  13      .         .         . 

171 

vi.  6,  9,  10,  17-19 

180 

Galatians 

2  Timothy 

ii.  10        .         .         . 

171 

ii.  4-6 

181 

iu.  16       .         .         . 

191 

iu.  26-28  . 

161 

Tittis 

iv.  22-27  . 

V.  6 

V.  13        . 

191 
164 
164 

i.  11 

ii.  5 

181 
192 

V.  22        . 

164 

Hebrews 

Ephesians 

ii.  2 

iv.  28       .         .         . 

V.  3,  5     .         .         .17 

V.  22,  23 . 

191 

178 

8,  202 

192 

ii.  6-8 
X.  5. 
X.  39 
xiii.  5 
xiii.  16 

191 

191 
191 
106 

178 
200 

vi.  5 

vi.  11        . 

192 
191 

i.  10 

Javies 

183 

PhilijJpians 

ii.  5 

iv.  15-19  . 

172 
171 

i.  10,  11 
ii.  2,  3,  8 
ii.  5 
ii.  6,  7 

184 
163 

177 

185 

Colossians 

iv.  13,  14 
V.  1-6 

184 
186 

201 
201 

iii.  11       .         .         . 

162 

V.  2 
V.  4 

185 

177 

1  Thessalonians 

ii.  18        .         .         . 

191 

1  Peter 

iii.  12       .         .         . 

165 

iii.  1 

192 

iv.  9,  10  . 

165 

iii.  3,  4 

180 

iv.  11        .         .              15 

1,  174 

iv.  15-18  . 

192 

1  John 

2  Thessalonians 
i.  7-10      . 

.     192 

iii.  8 
iii.  17 

191 
187 

i.  8,  9      . 

191 

Revelation 

I 

1  Timothy 

ii.  9 
vi.  15 

177 
182 

ii.  9-11     . 

.     180 

xi.  18 

182 

ii.  11-15  . 

.     192 

xii.  9 

191 

v.  17 

181 

xiii.  16 

182 

vi.  5 

181 

x.x.  2 

191 

Privted  by  R.  &  R.  Clark,  Limited,  Edinburgh 


Date  Due 


f ..  .-I'ty,.. 


